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.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And of course, by syocphant, HBMC means someone who happens to enjoy GW games, and spends a lot of money on them, as opposed to someone who purports to hate their games, yet spends a ridiculous amount of money on them....

"It's included in the ticket price! "

I'd attempt a rebuttal Grotsnik, but you've stuff this thread with so much straw that I might get hay fever.

BYE

That and with the size of your armies (we've seen the pics!) you know I'm actually right on this one.

lets see, let me just rearange this here..and this here...

ah yes

H.C.B.M

the happy customer who always comes back for more.

I believe that's gw's slant on hbmc.

It would take years to test every possible issue and find ways to fix them.

Actually it would probably only take a couple of months...judging by how quickly people found the "broken" lists or wargear when the codexes were originally leaked.

Which, surprise surprise, continues to happen despite the fact that GW moved all playtesting in house.

It's a matter of man hours.

If I test a Codex, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks (numbers out the air here...don't read owt into them!) then the Codex has had, including the hours put in by my opponents...480 hours of testing.

Now, the second that book hits the shelves, lets say it sells 1,000 copies on the first day. Not an unreasonable amount I feel, and quite possibly somewhat conservative.

So, for simplicities sake, lets say that a game last a fixed amount of time at 2 hours. That means I'd have played 120 games in those 6 weeks. This number of games will be achieved within the first round of games the new Codex owners play, and then some.....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That and with the size of your armies (we've seen the pics!) you know I'm actually right on this one.

No, your comment is a non sequiter. It does not follow.

And I do hate GW's game, which is why I avoid it at all costs and why my group has a set of playtested rules that we've been developing since before 4th Ed came out.

BYE

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I test a Codex, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks

Except you wouldn't. That'd be mad.

That said, playtesting a Codex isn't easy. It does take a while, especially if you don't do what GW does (ie. put playtesting a Codex into the 'too hard' basket and just make a new set of mandatory special characters).

BYE

I did say the numbers were pulled out the air for sake of comparisson.

The only way to achieve total balance would be to drop the flexible selection system, reduce the overall number of units, give each and every unit a specific task in the list, and offer up certain lists, from which no deviation can occur. Then you can playtest these 2 or 3 extremely dull things against each other until 'perfection' is achieved.

Gamesworkshop isa publicly traded company ; I believe one who owns stock can review certain records in regard to finance.

Gamesworkshop stck as far as I know has consistently went down with the rest of the stock markets .

Also from a publishing and game desing perspective Gamesworkshop does fail as a company. TO say someone is successful is not to congrue that they are legitametly always in the right.

or that they do not have faults. ; look at Microsoft prroducts.

The fact is that when you look at other rules publishing companies such as WOTC etc.. the reason these are more popular are not only because in a way it is completely differnt genre.

Which shouldn't be argued , but its through WOTC and others continued support of updates to their rules to not only keep players interested but also to change what they buy.


A good ruleset and game balance will bring more players than a broken ruleset where one specific item or amry dominates.

It's why playtesting is so important.

Now in a day of easily coordinated information through technology we have the ability to test something and almost instaneous produce more results that a group; of 6 playetesters combined.


It's just common math.


How can you argue with math. A more thoroughly playtested and reviewd product is goping to ultimately with the right choices be better ; if something is better generalyl people are more instested then if its a difficult to understand piece of gak.



It alsso makes brilliatn business sense ; the more product you can move the more money you make ; if it takes your 50 testers or in house testers 1 year to play test a codex ,but it takes 6 months to release a bet a review the data which is better?


Which is better?

The ability to put more product that is better tested and more prolific per year or 1 or 2 purchases ?

More product at a higher value or improvement per year for more customers to purchase is better.

Also ; beta testing a product or getting a review copy of a book does not affect the industry as a whole are you smoking crack?

That is the same argument the RIAA uses to fight digital piracy that this incredibly small majority of dedicated players will destroy or ultimately harm Gamesworkshops product is just absolutely ridiculous.


I could go on Pirate Bay right now and download every single gamesworkshop product EVER published.


I don't se Gamesworkshop closing up shop any time soon considering that you can just type in Space Marine Codex in google and get the full damn thing online.


GAmesworkshop has ot accept to a degree a all companies do that the digital medium has arrived and that you have to get with the times.

Fail. A good enough balanced ruleset will generate more revenue than a perfectly balanced one. A perfectly imbalanced ruleset is worthless as is a perfectly balanced one. Go study the gaming cycle and game balance theory.


<It's why playtesting is so important. >

Fail. There is no correlation between playtesting and purchasing up to a certain point. Hard numbers prove it, and you haven't disproved it.


<How can you argue with math. A more thoroughly playtested and reviewd product is goping to ultimately with the right choices be better ; if something is better generalyl people are more instested then if its a difficult to understand piece of gak.>

Fail. The vast majority of GW income is from new players. Veteran players are the most vocal, but spend the least

<It alsso makes brilliatn business sense ; the more product you can move the more money you make ; if it takes your 50 testers or in house testers 1 year to play test a codex ,but it takes 6 months to release a bet a review the data which is better?>

Fail. It makes terrible business sense. Numbers don't show veterans buying more because the rules are more "balanced." If anything sometimes things sell because they're "unbalanced".

I don't think you understand the principle of "good enough" in business. Let me use a real life example, since I'm studying this stuff in Economics. You place a high value on car safety right? You think cars should be safe, after all, how can you place a value on human life? The car companies do it all the time. You think the car you buy is safe? It isn't, all things considered. The car companies have the technology to make a car super safe, to the point where no life will be lost. But it's not economically worth it How much are you willing to spend on a car? 20 grand? 30 grand? The car companies know that you won't spend more on a car. So they cut on safety. They're not going to spend 100 grand per car testing and building the perfect product. Why? Because it won't make money. People won't buy it. It just needs to be safe enough.

You need to get this through your head. It's just not worth it. It costs too much time and too much money.

Second example: dealing with air conditioners. Many air conditioners are built to fail after 4-5 years. Of course, a manufacturer can make an air conditioner that lasts 20 years. Why do you think they don't do that? Why are they selling to you an inferior product? Because after that air conditioner fails you need to buy another one. However, that shoddily built air conditioner only costs $100, so people accept it and move on. What happens if an air conditioner company makes the perfect air conditioner and everyone buys one? You get to the point where no one will buy one. Why? Because the air conditioner you bought 20 years ago still works! Why would you buy another one? Why would an air conditioner company be even stupid enough to research and spend money on such a product?

All good points.

What's a great point was how the Automobile industry used to be, with domestic and european cars falling apart after only 100,000 miles. Which is fine, because people are forced to buy new cars,

Of course what's amusing is how JD Power got people to actually think about car quality and reliability. Cars are now good for 200,000 or even 250,000 miles, but they still try to get people to replace every 3 years. Looks like those chickens are coming home, as NOBODY actually *needs* a new car because people have finally figured out that current cars last for 15, 20 years at a stretch.

Heh.

scuddman wrote:I don't think you understand the principle of "good enough" in business. Let me use a real life example, since I'm studying this stuff in Economics. You place a high value on car safety right? You think cars should be safe, after all, how can you place a value on human life? The car companies do it all the time. You think the car you buy is safe? It isn't, all things considered. The car companies have the technology to make a car super safe, to the point where no life will be lost. But it's not economically worth it How much are you willing to spend on a car? 20 grand? 30 grand? The car companies know that you won't spend more on a car. So they cut on safety. They're not going to spend 100 grand per car testing and building the perfect product. Why? Because it won't make money. People won't buy it. It just needs to be safe enough.

You need to get this through your head. It's just not worth it. It costs too much time and too much money.

Second example: dealing with air conditioners. Many air conditioners are built to fail after 4-5 years. Of course, a manufacturer can make an air conditioner that lasts 20 years. Why do you think they don't do that? Why are they selling to you an inferior product? Because after that air conditioner fails you need to buy another one. However, that shoddily built air conditioner only costs $100, so people accept it and move on. What happens if an air conditioner company makes the perfect air conditioner and everyone buys one? You get to the point where no one will buy one. Why? Because the air conditioner you bought 20 years ago still works! Why would you buy another one? Why would an air conditioner company be even stupid enough to research and spend money on such a product?

Saying 'fail' at the start of all your points is needlessly inflamatory.

Furthermore, while you're correct about the 'good enough' principle (some of us might call it built-in obsolescence, but hey let's not get technical), there are two sides to GW rules.

1. Pendulum Swinging (the way GW does 'built-in obsolescence').
2. Bad rules writing.

The former is a necessary evil. In the same way my air-conditioner will fail in 4 years and I have to buy a new one, certain things will get better, get worse, and new models will replace old. That's cool. We can all live with that. In a perfect world it wouldn't have to happen, but guess what, it ain't a perfect world. GW isn't a charity, they're a business. Blah blah blah. But the latter, bad rules writing, is something that's not hard to fix. It really isn't. While someone like me might go into a Codex looking for the mistakes, the fact that all us here can rip a Codex apart and find the mistakes in it on the day of release, or within a week generate an FAQ as long as my arm (which will go unanswered) just strikes of lazy game design and bad rules writing.

It's one thing to plan that your Codex will be cycled out in 5-6 years and replaced by a new one, it's another to not even care about trying to make the rules good in the first place.

BYE

I'll just say, I agree, but now that I've worked for them, I can tell you it'll never happen. What will change that is if another game company consistently eats their market share with a superior product; then and only then will GW evolve.

Oh but they have changed Scuddman. They have changed.

Just recently they got even more lazy, stating that their FAQs weren't even official any more and that people should sort everything out themselves.

That's a change. Not a change for the better, but it's a change!

BYE

Why IS it that GW hates the tournement community so?

It seems the only real reason not to come up with adequate FAQ. I mean, many of the customers are clamoring for it. Tournement gamers are just as much customers of GW as are casual gamers.

Is it just less work for them? Could that be a reason? I cannot fathom why adequate FAQ cannot be released.

I don't think they hate the tournament community. They probably make money off tournaments.

GW think the Adepticon FAQ saves them from making their own, IMO.

As far as GW believe, FAQs are not their concern. They do not concede the point that tightening the rules to tournament standard is a) their responsibility, or b) cheap. Despite the fact that Adepticon and and Fluid40k from Dicelikethunder.com have both done it successfully FOR FREE! And they continue to promote an "official" tournament scene that they charge entry for. Which facts give the lie to both of their assertions!

If I was a tournament gamer I'd be cheesed off. As it stands I'm only a casual gamer who couldn't care less about the tournament scene. I just wish GW would employ a proofreader worth their salt and learn to use playtesters properly (well, at all really) so that some of the more obvious horrors didn't have to be D6'd.

Just to clarify my position.
I don't care about perfect army balance.
I don't care about rule errors.

All I care about is a wargame that looks a bit like war, rather than a Beat Takeshi action scene. (I do like Takeshi movies, but hopefully you get my point).

Kilkrazy wrote:Speaking from experience, training and education as a publisher and manager, I can see no reason why GW can't do better publishing 40K if they want to. So I assume they don't want to, and have good reasons for it. Probably connected with the point mentioned earlier that their core market is 13-year old boys, and there is a fresh crop every year to replace the ones who have moved on.

Yes, and to follow on from my earlier point about the preteen audience, maybe the game *is* balanced (in a sense) for their target market.

We vets build armies with purpose. Even if we get sucked in by the shiny new model that isn't all that on the tabletop, we generally think about purchases and have a plan.

Not little Billy. Little Billy the newbie picks up a random assortment of SM kits because they look cool or the guy at the store told him to. And when he and his preteen friends are throwing random assortments of units on the table and playing their games, most of the worst combinations and abuses will never surface. And they stand a good chance of leaving the hobby before they figure out said abuses and make the right purchases.

Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.

gorgon wrote:Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.

And neither is the GW studio. From all indications, GW tends to field these wierd theme / variety armies, so such kinds of focused armies just don't apply.

scuddman wrote:


Fail. A good enough balanced ruleset will generate more revenue than a perfectly balanced one. A perfectly imbalanced ruleset is worthless as is a perfectly balanced one. Go study the gaming cycle and game balance theory.


<It's why playtesting is so important. >

Fail. There is no correlation between playtesting and purchasing up to a certain point. Hard numbers prove it, and you haven't disproved it.


<How can you argue with math. A more thoroughly playtested and reviewd product is goping to ultimately with the right choices be better ; if something is better generalyl people are more instested then if its a difficult to understand piece of gak.>

Fail. The vast majority of GW income is from new players. Veteran players are the most vocal, but spend the least

<It alsso makes brilliatn business sense ; the more product you can move the more money you make ; if it takes your 50 testers or in house testers 1 year to play test a codex ,but it takes 6 months to release a bet a review the data which is better?>

Fail. It makes terrible business sense. Numbers don't show veterans buying more because the rules are more "balanced." If anything sometimes things sell because they're "unbalanced".

I don't think you understand the principle of "good enough" in business. Let me use a real life example, since I'm studying this stuff in Economics. You place a high value on car safety right? You think cars should be safe, after all, how can you place a value on human life? The car companies do it all the time. You think the car you buy is safe? It isn't, all things considered. The car companies have the technology to make a car super safe, to the point where no life will be lost. But it's not economically worth it How much are you willing to spend on a car? 20 grand? 30 grand? The car companies know that you won't spend more on a car. So they cut on safety. They're not going to spend 100 grand per car testing and building the perfect product. Why? Because it won't make money. People won't buy it. It just needs to be safe enough.

You need to get this through your head. It's just not worth it. It costs too much time and too much money.

Second example: dealing with air conditioners. Many air conditioners are built to fail after 4-5 years. Of course, a manufacturer can make an air conditioner that lasts 20 years. Why do you think they don't do that? Why are they selling to you an inferior product? Because after that air conditioner fails you need to buy another one. However, that shoddily built air conditioner only costs $100, so people accept it and move on. What happens if an air conditioner company makes the perfect air conditioner and everyone buys one? You get to the point where no one will buy one. Why? Because the air conditioner you bought 20 years ago still works! Why would you buy another one? Why would an air conditioner company be even stupid enough to research and spend money on such a product?

Alright let's get the first one out of the way.

Well you cannot achieve perfection ; but the determination of what is good enough theory is not really efficient as it is arbitrary to whom? If something is "good enough" for one it doesn't mean it is good enough for all. Now a general opinion of the how a game plays over all and how blanaced certain aspects of it compared to others are is what makes us continually strive for new editions.

If GW accepted a "good enough" stance we would still be playing 3rd edtion or 2nd; It's what our opinion of their determination what good enough is that we are discussing this.

Gaming Cycle?? Game Balance theory? You've kind of made your point with the pullshitoutofmyassthatsoundscollegey theory.

There is no overall Game Balance Theory ever published in any peer reviewed magazine; other than the statement that you should have some semblance of both sides in strategic assets be equal as to give both players a fair chance of winning otherwise it's not really a game. FYI it's why people like this little game called chess.

Game Cycle? Yeah again I refer to the case of youdon'tknowwhathehellyouaretalkingabout vs. Supreme Court of Maryland.

What does that even mean seriously.

Unless you are trying to refer to a release period of product where as older product is phased out compared to new product.


Alright let's get back to the last one and address your second one.

First I'd like to see your hard numbers proving that to begin with; here are my corrolations though. I however can point to dozens of failed products that have failed ultimately because of poor playtesting and bad design, if you want a correlation go to gamerankings or another peer reviewed site such as tabletopgames look at reviews then compare bad reviews with bad sales.

Poor reviews and poor product generally equal poors sales. The old you could put a bowtie on a turd but its still a turd applies.


3rd

I have no idea what your reffering to; but its a sustainability of constant procurement by players then I guess. I don't think the issue of where games workshop procures its income mainly from was discussed.

But as a product that is well tested and has a gradual rather than steep learning curve is more attractive to younger customers then I'll conscede that I am correct in saying the game needs better balance and play testing as well as a better product over all as it will create more interest in younger gamers as well maintain their loyalty to a product that doesn't go to gak.

4th

The idea that a higher turn around on new product released in regards to purchasing is true. The less payment you have to make and quikcer you can cycle something out into production is directly related to your sales and regard to time spent testing a product to time spent selling a product. If I spend 1 million dollars testing something I need to make that 1 million dollars back.

Overall cost are reduced by a quicker cycle of release.

It's why wizard of the coast has a very prolific testing of their product and are able to release more product than gamesworkshop and they have to relase a product that balances with about 15 years and 8000 cards of rules.

The main thing that slows the creative process is gametesting and actual creation time of models.

If you have a scupltor completely finished with a product line but you are still sitting on waiting for rules to be playtested and released you are losing money.

4th

I don't think comparing a failing aut industry to a game and hobby company is a good correlation. The federal governemnt mandates what safety features should go on cars; and as most accidents involving vehiclesis 90% of time or higher related directly to human error building a "perfectly " safe car is not possible. Another point to make and as a "economics" major you should know this is the complete and utter failure of business in the american car industry. Car industries are not going to release a perfect car or make claims to such as it is impossible they just have to make it better than their competition.

The idea that it costs to much time and money to revise or release a printed product is marginal if your sales of said product are good. Comparing a revision and recall to a revision of a printed magazine is not a good comparison as the cost to reproduce has already been discussed due to advances in digital medium their is a reduced cost in change of production.

Also, there would not need to be a total revision but simple language change with no added pages would solve problems and not in gneeral overall reproduce a document.

Here is how the printing industry works. hard copy - digital copy - digital copy and files go to printer - printer prints it out through the use of a mystical devise called a computer.

Gutenberg is not turning cogs and pulling out type sets any more for mixed media; FYI this menas a product that contains print and illustrations. It's usually done on a larger machine and printed out either at once or through a difficerent machine and stabled together. You can actual notice the pohysical difference in the codex with the glossy pages having printed illustrations and just typeset pages are slightly different.

The cost to revise and reprint is more in the line of the cost of paying someone to actual do it in the first place not with the actual reprinting of the product ; as you are just changin a document not reprinting a entirely new product.

Your analogy fails as it misses tthe main ingredient that games workshop will not be spending additional monies on purchasing their older product. The cost is only going to be in prinitng. The cost that Autoindustries examine is myraid; one that the cost of recalling a object will be more than the lawsuits and two that replacing the object completely would be cost prohibitve versus when a warranty on said object expires.



II will agree on the air conditioners; for to long america has faced the strangle hold of the air conditioner conspiracy and its grip on the american economy. If only we could expose these corrupt companies and have the federal government step in then we could spend or money on healthcare.

GW themselves names them as a miniature company nowdays. Thats a big diffrence from back when many of us started they were a gaming company with roleplaying games and other stuff published by themselves. I can honestly say that NONE of the people I know and play with would have bought a single model witout the rules.

Now they are an economic investment without the pepole who started it and their ideas. Like many already pointed out, they work exactly the same as any other buisness. If its worth doing by generating enough extra sales they do it, giving enough return on the money invested.

Its only to get with the program or get out.. or my personal option hang around with the stuff I already have and only pick up some stuff people sell on ebay cheap.

WoTC has been developing MTG for almost as long as GW has been developing WHFB/WH40K.

The difference is their product cannot exist seperate of the rules. Our models can. They can sit right next to my Snap-Rite model X-wing with no rules written or looked at. A Black Lotus ($1000 Card) is only worth something if MTG still exists and the Vintage Format exists. If MTG closed up shop tomorrow the Lotus would drop in price back to the value of the card board it was printed on.

I've complained about the rules, I've complained about the Cheese, but any game will have it. If you're playing @ tournaments it's up to the tourney organizer to have a consistent ruling structure based on the game being played, to ensure repeat tourneys. If you're playing @ home with buddies, then take a vote and get on with having fun.

There are classes you can take about game design in college. If your college offers it, I highly recommend it. Even if you never use what they teach, it's highly illuminating about what makes a successful game.

Put game balance theory into google and you can find quite a bit about the topic.

Nothing about game balance has ever been published? Really? You didn't check very hard..it is an old, ancient concept. At the very least you can find articles talking about the concept of chess.

As for the air conditioner thing, it's not just air conditioners. Every single company does that. It's not a conspiracy. It's about making money.

As for the printing thing, you're not getting it. It doesn't matter even if it's only 1 cent. They still wouldn't do it because in the past it never generated revenue. Chaos codex 3.5, dark elves revision, 6th edition. They've done it, it doesn't work. Companies do things to make money. It doesn't matter if it's easy to do, they'll never do it if it doesn't make money.

Gaming cycle: A LOT is written about this. It's not too different from the software release cycle or the OS cycle. Once again, if you can take classes on game design, do so. Studying software release and software testing is fascinating also, since it'll show all the stuff about testing that GW never does. If you want to make a perfect game, the tools to do so are taught there.

Do you know why government mandates safety? Because the car companies won't do it with out it. You can call it a failcraft if you want, but the japanese car companies that make money do it too. And it's a necessary evil..you can't stay in business if you sink 100 grand into a car.

Lastly, you're not getting it. Yes, a badly designed product won't sell. But a perfect one will only sell temporarily. You always need bigger or better. Your talk about not changing editions tells me you didn't look up gaming cycle at all. You simply just don't understand their business model.

gorgon wrote:
Yes, and to follow on from my earlier point about the preteen audience, maybe the game *is* balanced (in a sense) for their target market.

We vets build armies with purpose. Even if we get sucked in by the shiny new model that isn't all that on the tabletop, we generally think about purchases and have a plan.

Not little Billy. Little Billy the newbie picks up a random assortment of SM kits because they look cool or the guy at the store told him to. And when he and his preteen friends are throwing random assortments of units on the table and playing their games, most of the worst combinations and abuses will never surface. And they stand a good chance of leaving the hobby before they figure out said abuses and make the right purchases.

Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.

This sums up my position pretty well. GWs issued stance on tournament gamers reads to me as: "Moz, this is not your game. Go away."

Will do. PP cares about the competitive game, for now anyways; and that's good enough for me.

I'd say that I grew out of Grim'N'Dark in early highschool anyways.

Design wise, there is a world of difference between Warmachine and 40k.

For a start, Warmachine has 5 Factions (more if you include Hordes, but I don't know much about Hordes. Feel free to correct me if you feel I've missed something). And those 5 Factions tend to revolve around a single common theme. All have Warcasters, who are central to the army, and the Warjacks.

40k however, has more different forces, and each one has a different 'theme' from the others. Doing this, I'm amazed there is any balance or continuity between the forces at all.

Now, this is not a critiscism of PP at all, just illustrating that there are quite a few differences in overall Game Design between the fames/

The difference that I am interested in between WM/H and 40k, is that when the tournament gamers in WM/H say "Hey we wish you guys would be more clear with us, and do X, Y, and Z", PPs response has never been "Well you are tournament gamers, and the game is not meant for you. So we decline your requests."

For what it's worth, Warmachine and hordes do play on the same table. So it's 8 main factions and several merc contracts. Regardless it's a ton of models with a lot of very complicated interactions between them. There are armies built around shooting, close combat, resilience, speed, and dirty dirty tricks. PP's answer has been to be very clear on the phases of each action in the game, to have people on-hand monitoring forums who's rulings carry weight, and to publish FAQs and errata as much as needed to make the rulings of these individuals more visible for everyone. There is discernable imbalance between certain models and warcasters, but the factions themselves all tend to have an equal shot of taking a big tournament when played to their fullest ability.

Edit:
I've also heard often that, like your point, the games should not be compared to each other side by side - since they obviously have different scope. I'm going against this because for me, it is a direct comparison. GW doesn't want me, PP does. My decision is easy.

don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?

Yep, if the cost is not too high (and yes cost/benefit anaylsis would easily be done here). After all chess sales kick the absolute out of GW sales.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, here's question that we might want to ask ourselves:

How much have you spent on GW rules compared to GW miniatures?

If you spent more on rules, then it's possible that you could see GW as a rules company.

However, I'd guess that the average gamer spends easily 3 times as much on miniatures.

Thats not the appropriate question John. A better question would be:

1A. How much would you have spent on GW miniatures if there were no GW rules?
1B. If the rules were "better" would you have spent more, less, or same?
1C. To former GW gamers, what amount of additional miniatures would you have bought if there were "better" rules?
1D. What is the actual cost for "better" rules?