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.

 BryllCream wrote:
Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

Please don't whine about spam instead of making constructive posts.

It's interesting you think that this is why GW is doing well. I would argue that they're successful because of the miniatures they produce, combined with the beer and pretzal ruleset that creates a more casual hobby than the more niche games that people on dakka talk about.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that GW is starting from a dominant position they built before their current competition existed. What you see now is that GW is constantly losing market share to that competition, which tells you that their current dominance probably has more to do with inertia than making a better product.

And you'd have to be absolutely insane to ignore the "all my friends play it" factor.

That's interesting. Name me a single company that will *definitely* grow and make money every year over the next five years.

Nice straw man. Some companies are likely (but not guaranteed) to make money, some are high risk/high reward, some are likely to lose money, etc. That's why investing is a gamble, not guaranteed money. But the fact that you can only be confident, not absolutely 100% certain beyond any possible doubt, that an alternative investment will grow and make money doesn't mean that investing in GW is magically less of a risk.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that you're ignoring the fact that GW is starting from a dominant position they built before their current competition existed. What you see now is that GW is constantly losing market share to that competition, which tells you that their current dominance probably has more to do with inertia than making a better product.

Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

And you'd have to be absolutely insane to ignore the "all my friends play it" factor.

I know. All my friends play 40k, I've never even met anyone who plays any of the things people on dakka always rave about.

Nice straw man. Some companies are likely (but not guaranteed) to make money, some are high risk/high reward, some are likely to lose money, etc. That's why investing is a gamble, not guaranteed money. But the fact that you can only be confident, not absolutely 100% certain beyond any possible doubt, that an alternative investment will grow and make money doesn't mean that investing in GW is magically less of a risk.

So, all investmnent is a risk, and you have no way of showing why GW is more of a risk than others, despite showing strong profit/revenue growth?

Okay I'll help you out, *here* are some reasons GW may not be so hot in the near future:

*The Hobbit flopped big time. A lot of money invested, very little interest.

*Rocketing commodity prices. This will surely impact stores' profitability as they need heating/air con.

*Stagnant consumer spending due to the recession.

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

I know. All my friends play 40k, I've never even met anyone who plays any of the things people on dakka always rave about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

So, all investmnent is a risk, and you have no way of showing why GW is more of a risk than others, despite showing strong profit/revenue growth?

I've already explained why: because GW's current "growth" is primarily based on unsustainable cost cutting (because eventually there's nothing left to cut) and price increases (because there's a maximum viable price), not true growth. It's a good short-term investment if you're confident that you can dump the stock before that unsustainable plan runs out, since GW will probably continue to "grow" for the immediate future. But it's a bad long-term investment because GW doesn't seem to have any plan for continued growth once their current plan is no longer viable.

Dakkamites, I think you totally saw where I was going with my question.

Over 6 years, on average revenue grew at only about 2% to 3%.

Same time period, on average price increased at IIRC 5%, but I trust you more on 10% to 25%.

So even if you assume no new players, no increase in volume, revenue should go up 5%, 10%, 25%.

(What you said about profitability is right, I'm just looking at the top line as that's more telling.)

You see the gap. Sales volume is NOT stagnating. It's decreasing steadily. GW's bleeding out.

They're selling less per player or losing players (customers always churn out, but you earn new ones).

Agree with this comment and will add...

As I have posted in the past GW will make a profit, and it will be a big one. Never before have I seen so much material being made and sold by GW to the declining customer base with increase prices than the year before.

Now as far as what GW is actually worth? The IP's mostly and not in hundred million range. Everything else can be placed on a fire sale/auction/deleted.

It's really a company on paper. You can have the best models/game/rule system around, but if you do not cultivate your customer base every 4 years to promote long term growth into the product you are selling you are essentially doing what GW is doing. Burn and churn your customer base and raise prices to obscene levels that the average person can not get into.

This is not a company I would invest into.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

I've already explained why: because GW's current "growth" is primarily based on unsustainable cost cutting (because eventually there's nothing left to cut) and price increases (because there's a maximum viable price), not true growth. It's a good short-term investment if you're confident that you can dump the stock before that unsustainable plan runs out, since GW will probably continue to "grow" for the immediate future. But it's a bad long-term investment because GW doesn't seem to have any plan for continued growth once their current plan is no longer viable.

Conversely I could argue that growth is unsustainable as GW is never going to take over the world. Maybe they've already reached their natural pinacle? Not everyone can play with toy soldiers.

But if they continue to cut costs and raise prices, that doesn't mean squat when the divident cheque comes through.

Bryllo, Bryllo, Bryllo...

Firstly, GW aren't a private company, they are publicly owned, that's what the P in PLC stands for.

Secondly, I first became aware of you on a similar thread to this, mainly because your lack of understanding of company finances and sheer naïveté in that regard really stood out. Now, since then, many, many people, myself included, have tried to explain the flaws in your arguments and why your assertions don't quite work, but at this point I can only assume you are either incapable or unwilling to understand them.

So which is it?

 BryllCream wrote:
Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

The market is defined as miniature wargaming, since that's the product that GW produces. Defining GW as being "casual" is nonsense because GW also sells to competitive players, and GW's competition also sells to casual players.

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

And what you keep ignoring is that it won't make them more money in the long run. It makes more money right now, but at the expense of damaging GW's biggest tool for getting new customers. So if you want a short-term investment and are sure you can dump your stock before you lose any money, buy GW shares. If you want a long-term investment then you have to be really skeptical of this plan.

Conversely I could argue that growth is unsustainable as GW is never going to take over the world. Maybe they've already reached their natural pinacle? Not everyone can play with toy soldiers.

Sigh. Weren't you just proposing that the growth in GW's competition is because the entire market is expanding?

But if they continue to cut costs and raise prices, that doesn't mean squat when the divident cheque comes through.

And the fact you keep ignoring is that the dividends won't continue to happen like this. The methods used to generate those awesome dividends aren't sustainable in the long run, and GW doesn't have any apparent backup plan for continuing to grow once their current plan runs out. So yes, buy stock to get the next dividend check and sell again, but buying GW stock to get long-term dividends is a pretty risky plan.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run. GW has a business plan aimed directly at our wallets, so they make a specific amount of new releases each year in order to keep a supposedly steady flow on sales and income without draining out their customers wallets. So despite all this careful planning on how we will buy they keep increasing the prices and still not making as much profit. So this means they are loosing customers (people go and no new people come). If they don't invest into getting new blood into the hobby our beloved game will shrink and maybe die.

If a company is growing more slowly than the industry in which they are based then that company is losing market share - the market is getting bigger, put their portion of that market is not.

At this point in time, GW is losing market share.

They are not shrinking - just growing more slowly than the industry taken as a whole.

Some of it comes down to making some business decisions that are... dubious at best:

Advertising - lack thereof.

Antagonizing long term customers - coupled with lack of advertising this can be crippling. When you rely on word-of-mouth then giving cause for getting bad-mouthed is bad.

Litigious behavior - at this point they have begun legal battles that they have little chance of winning, and at a higher cost than those that they are taking to court. Pyrrhic victories at best, image damaging losses more than likely.

We know the stock market value of GW, but its worth at this point?... Hard to say. They have assets that could be used to grow with the market, if properly utilized.

But under the current management? Likely dropping.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
If a company is growing more slowly than the industry in which they are based then that company is losing market share - the market is getting bigger, put their portion of that market is not.

At this point in time, GW is losing market share.

They are not shrinking - just growing more slowly than the industry taken as a whole.

Exactly!

Growth at a rate less than growth of the industry is not growth.
According to GW's most recent financial report they grew 6.5% last year I believe, the industry grew 15%
Since GW didn't grow that much their competitors, which they do have Bryll despite what you seem to think, their competitors must have for the industry to have grown. That is very bad news for GW.

 Capamaru wrote:
Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run.

It's not ridiculous at all. Obviously Ferrari is making a lot of money with their business plan of making an "elite" product at a high price and selling to a small number of customers. However, there's a huge difference between that and GW's situation. A Ferrari (like many other luxury items) is often a prestige thing, you buy one because they're rare, as a sign that you're a member of the exclusive club of people rich enough to afford such things. In fact, for many of their customers it would be ideal if prices went up and fewer people could buy them. But it's stupid for GW because a successful game, unlike a successful luxury car, depends on having a large number of customers so that you actually have people to play the game with. The more exclusive a game gets the less likely it is that anyone will bother playing it.

Ferrari did not shrink its customer base - it started with a small but high ticket base.

If Ford were to drop its current base to go after Ferrari's customers... then they would be in a similar position to GW.

Nor is GW producing the equivalent of Ferrari - contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

Ultraforge makes some resin models that look much better than GW's - they can argue that they are making a Porsche. And they are charging for a Porsche.

Mantic produces a Ford, markets for a Ford, and charges for a Ford. Not in quite the same market, but it will take you where you want to go.

Forge World - a GW subsidiary - is making a Mercedes and charging for a Porsche, but it is much closer to the truth than the boxy Ferrari that GW is putting out. You know, the one where a noticeable number of the cars are missing things like fenders?

Me, I want a Morgan... CMoN makes some nice ones, and charges accordingly....

I think that I have just about killed this metaphor, eh?

The Auld Grump

 BryllCream wrote:

*Stagnant consumer spending due to the recession.

But there isn't stagnant consumer spending due to the recession, for 2 reasons: luxury spending usually increases (as people want escapism) and the market in which GW is competing is experiencing record growth. GW is seeing stagnant consumer spending because they are losing market share to competitors, not because of the recession.

 BryllCream wrote:

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

I'd say that most other games are more casual friendly than GW for a host of reasons; more streamlined rules, smaller figure counts, faster games, lower costs of entry. GW's rules are massive and clunky compared to many (like Mantics Kings Of War rule set, which is only about 16 pages long including army lists.)

I think we're using different definitions of casual; I mean quick pick-up games with some beer, you seem to be referring to games where the quality of the game doesn't count.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
... contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

The Auld Grump

THis is a very very interesting subject, but many people seem to be judging it on gut feelings, like their (reasonable) resentment of paying GW prices.

Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

Secondly, if you're going to criticise for price gouging, you need to compare like with like. Kromlech is a cottage industry based in Poland, which is paying less tax, and is essentially relying on IP that GW have created. Now, I applaud the fact we can buy their bits, but Kromlech are simply exploiting a market that GW has created. It's easy, if someone has created an iconography for Space Orks using design staff over a number of years, simply to design a niche product that takes advantage of concepts they have defined, without any of the cost base. Likewise, you have companies like, IIIRC, Privateer, who charge similar prices to GW - but make their products in China. So who is price gouging?

Thirdly, we have criticisms that GW is not growing the market. Then in other threads we have criticisms that they are catering to 13-year old kids. Which is true? Because it's the 13-year old kids who grow into gamers. And GW does far more to recruit them than other companies.

In terms of perspective, I'm a dad whose son plays 40k, as do his mates, I visit Dakka 'cos I do his conversions. I think the resentment of GW is like the resentment of thousands of other companies, where we would simply like their stuff to be cheaper - when, 9 times out of 10, making them cheaper would kill the company.

Overall, I applaud GW 'cos they pay their taxes - unlike Amazon, Starbucks, Google, you name em - because they don't exploit cheap production - unlike Primark, Tesco, and seemingly people like Privateer Press. I don't like their prices, but the nipper buys them from Dark Sphere and gets tremendous value out of them, when you factor in the making, the painting and the playing (the model airplane kits he used to make weren't noticeably cheaper). GW seem to me to be the ones growing the market because they're recruiting younger players.

Finally, I wish the UK and US post office would keep their price increases in line with GW's. There's been a price hike of 40% in the UK recently, which adds far more to our cost of constructing an army, than GW increases!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run.

It's not ridiculous at all. Obviously Ferrari is making a lot of money with their business plan of making an "elite" product at a high price and selling to a small number of customers. However, there's a huge difference between that and GW's situation. A Ferrari (like many other luxury items) is often a prestige thing, you buy one because they're rare, as a sign that you're a member of the exclusive club of people rich enough to afford such things. In fact, for many of their customers it would be ideal if prices went up and fewer people could buy them. But it's stupid for GW because a successful game, unlike a successful luxury car, depends on having a large number of customers so that you actually have people to play the game with. The more exclusive a game gets the less likely it is that anyone will bother playing it.

So going elite means that you cannot have the same customers anymore. You rely on a few chosen people to support your high valued product in order for you to proceed and grow as a company while in the same time the not so elite competitors sells to everybody else. When it comes to cars and watches there are people willing to spend a fortune in order to get into that elite club of Ferrari owners or own a philippe patek that costs more than a Ferrari. When it comes to toy soldiers going elite means that you will probably be out of business in a very short time, especially if your marketing department is one composed of short sighted idiots like the ones in GW. BTW it is a good thing that Fiat bought Ferrari and VW bought Lambo and Bugatti cause people in saudi arabia would be in great trouble finding spare parts for their elite super cars..

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
... contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

The Auld Grump

THis is a very very interesting subject, but many people seem to be judging it on gut feelings, like their (reasonable) resentment of paying GW prices.

Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

Secondly, if you're going to criticise for price gouging, you need to compare like with like. Kromlech is a cottage industry based in Poland, which is paying less tax, and is essentially relying on IP that GW have created. Now, I applaud the fact we can buy their bits, but Kromlech are simply exploiting a market that GW has created. It's easy, if someone has created an iconography for Space Orks using design staff over a number of years, simply to design a niche product that takes advantage of concepts they have defined, without any of the cost base. Likewise, you have companies like, IIIRC, Privateer, who charge similar prices to GW - but make their products in China. So who is price gouging?

Thirdly, we have criticisms that GW is not growing the market. Then in other threads we have criticisms that they are catering to 13-year old kids. Which is true? Because it's the 13-year old kids who grow into gamers. And GW does far more to recruit them than other companies.

In terms of perspective, I'm a dad whose son plays 40k, as do his mates, I visit Dakka 'cos I do his conversions. I think the resentment of GW is like the resentment of thousands of other companies, where we would simply like their stuff to be cheaper - when, 9 times out of 10, making them cheaper would kill the company.

Overall, I applaud GW 'cos they pay their taxes - unlike Amazon, Starbucks, Google, you name em - because they don't exploit cheap production - unlike Primark, Tesco, and seemingly people like Privateer Press. I don't like their prices, but the nipper buys them from Dark Sphere and gets tremendous value out of them, when you factor in the making, the painting and the playing (the model airplane kits he used to make weren't noticeably cheaper). GW seem to me to be the ones growing the market because they're recruiting younger players.

Finally, I wish the UK and US post office would keep their price increases in line with GW's. There's been a price hike of 40% in the UK recently, which adds far more to our cost of constructing an army, than GW increases!

Pretty much entirely piffle.

Shall we look at other plastics molding companies, producing in similar volume? GW prices are high.

Because, at its core, that is what GW has become - a plastics molding company.

Plastics molding is less expensive per unit with larger runs. GW likely does have some of the largest runs in the industry.

Which means that they pay less per unit.

Kromlech is a cottage industry - which means manufacturing in smaller quantities, with lower savings for the company by means of higher production. And they do so with a more expensive material and slower process to manufacture their models.

And they are still beating GW with both price and quality.

I hate to tell you this - but if GW is selling to 13 year olds, and is selling to fewer and fewer 13 year olds then both are true. There is no need to pick between the two, they are not mutually exclusive.

And that is what is happening.

That is at the core of 'losing market share'.

Strange as it may sound - those 13 year olds? Their mums and dads kinda choke when they look at the price of The Hobbit game.... And the money is in the hands of those same parents.

Oy!

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

Ultraforge makes some resin models that look much better than GW's - they can argue that they are making a Porsche. And they are charging for a Porsche.

Mantic produces a Ford, markets for a Ford, and charges for a Ford. Not in quite the same market, but it will take you where you want to go.

Forge World - a GW subsidiary - is making a Mercedes and charging for a Porsche, but it is much closer to the truth than the boxy Ferrari that GW is putting out. You know, the one where a noticeable number of the cars are missing things like fenders?

I love car analogies, as they're often so easy to make. This is probably one of the best I've seen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

Please don't post.

Fix'd.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
[Pretty much entirely piffle.

Shall we look at other plastics molding companies, producing in similar volume? GW prices are high.

Because, at its core, that is what GW has become - a plastics molding company.

Plastics molding is less expensive per unit with larger runs. GW likely does have some of the largest runs in the industry.

Which means that they pay less per unit.

Kromlech is a cottage industry - which means manufacturing in smaller quantities, with lower savings for the company by means of higher production. And they do so with a more expensive material and slower process to manufacture their models.

And they are still beating GW with both price and quality.

I hate to tell you this - but if GW is selling to 13 year olds, and is selling to fewer and fewer 13 year olds then both are true. There is no need to pick between the two, they are not mutually exclusive.

And that is what is happening.

That is at the core of 'losing market share'.

Strange as it may sound - those 13 year olds? Their mums and dads kinda choke when they look at the price of The Hobbit game.... And the money is in the hands of those same parents.

Oy!

The Auld Grump

I can see this is an emotive subject - people are arguing on their prejudices, or assertions, not on facts.

Your assertion that mums and dads are choking at the price of the Hobbit are entirely plausible. But are you seriously arguing that Krlomlech don't have a lower cost base than GW? Last time I checked, their little resin Painboy conversion was every bit as expensive as GW's origina. Kromlech's version is also entirely derivative of GW's ideas. All credit to them for producing a nice, boutique product, but the notion that they make GW look radically overpriced simply isn't borne out by the facts.

I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

And as stated above, that is the key to GW's success. Without getting into subjective opinions about the quality of the rules or minis, I know several people who only play because their friends do. If they go to a higher-priced, more "exclusive" business model I think it's going to turn out poorly for them.

Honestly I don't think it's an actual strategy they are employing. I think they are just utterly incompetent and flailing to keep making profit as long as possible before it comes crashing down. The very easy cash grabs they keep turning down illustrate that for me.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

This has been done several times in a couple of the big online communities now, including Dakka. I'm sure the threads are still there somewhere if you look.

The short version is that, although some assumptions have to be made on their sales "mix", GW prices tend to increase about 5% on an annual basis which suggests their player base/gross sales are actually in decline given a 2% CAGR for their revenue.

Also, just an aside, the recession ended in the US in 2009. US equities since then (publicly owned companies that make "stuff" for "people") have roughly doubled in value. Privateer Press, based on some tracking data done by retail-level distributors, seems to have roughly doubled in size as well while catering to US and int'l markets.

And finally, commodity prices are generally DOWN YoY, most notably the critical fuel/fuel byproducts prices that would really affect a plastics maanufacturer/exporter.

Just throwing that out in response to "Because recession, because gaming, because commodity prices".

GW tend to increase prices on a part of their range and not all of it. So a 5% increase will not be as severe as you might predict if you take the "facts" at face value.

This being the case the have a 2-3 year spread.

That was taken into account. Go dredge up one of the threads or do your own research if you want to dispute it.

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Notprop perhaps phrased it a tad harshly, but he's right. If YOU want to play something different, you'll probably have to invest in a starter and persuade your friends to have a game with you, not a massive problem if they don't have to invest anything but some time.

Many of us have had to do this or will do at some point in the future. If you like a game and are enthusiastic about it, it won't take long before that enthusiasm infects your gaming group.

Of course, if you're happy playing just 40k, there's no problem, but if you want to expand your gaming beyond that, you'll probably have to man up and invest some hard-earned.

sourclams wrote:That was taken into account. Go dredge up one of the threads or do your own research if you want to dispute it.

Really? It wasn't clear from your lecture on the topic. I had though it was a discussion, my apologies for getting confuzzeled.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

I think your error is that you don't want to plough your own furrow. If you do not challenge the established status quo then the alternatives you seek will remain out of reach.

I only choose Warmahordes for the "play like you got a pair" tagline. I don't think it applies to you in retrospect.

 azreal13 wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Notprop perhaps phrased it a tad harshly, but he's right. If YOU want to play something different, you'll probably have to invest in a starter and persuade your friends to have a game with you, not a massive problem if they don't have to invest anything but some time.

Many of us have had to do this or will do at some point in the future. If you like a game and are enthusiastic about it, it won't take long before that enthusiasm infects your gaming group.

Of course, if you're happy playing just 40k, there's no problem, but if you want to expand your gaming beyond that, you'll probably have to man up and invest some hard-earned.

Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

Herzlos wrote:

Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

No, if you just "man up" and spend a bunch of money on multiple armies for a new system then I am sure they will come around

Look, this is getting OT, but don't be so touchy.

If you didn't insist on getting your arse in your hand about some turn of phrase you've decided to be offended at, you might see the main intent of these posts is to try and help you move forward.

An example:
I fancy Dropzone Commander, I really like the minis, so I have ordered the rulebook to see how it plays. If I like the way it seems to play, I will purchase a starter unit for my faction. If I can find someone at the local club who wants to play, and buy their own, great, otherwise I will buy another starter for a different faction. That way, I can play anyone, hell, even if my mum fancies trying something new I will be set.

At the end of the day, if nobody else is interested, I have some cool ass minis. Besides, who knows what'll happen in a year, DZC may be the new 40k, or it may have disappeared without trace, leaving a residual fan base who happily pay through the nose for the original sculpts. Or anything in between.

The fact remains that if you want to play different games, you will likely need to lead by example.

Herzlos wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

This has been done several times in a couple of the big online communities now, including Dakka. I'm sure the threads are still there somewhere if you look.

/
.

So, we have assertions that prices are rising by 10 or 20 per cent, but they remain assertions. There is evidence for any old tosh on the internet somewhere, probably that GW are lizardmen who are controlling the international banking system.

aside, the recession ended in the US in 2009. US equities since then (publicly owned companies that make "stuff" for "people") have roughly doubled in value. Privateer Press, based on some tracking data done by retail-level distributors, seems to have roughly doubled in size as well while catering to US and int'l markets.

Again, you seem to be judging this according to your own prejudices. GW is a UK-based business, and the UK is still bumping along the bottom. Good for Privateer Press if they're doing well - I notice no one on this thread is criticising them for charging GW-style prices, while producing in China.

Here's a real comparison, not taken from what some mate said on the internet. You can track GW stock against the market. You can also track them against a UK competitor, who celebrate their 150th anniversary this week I believe, 'God bless em.

Blue shaded line is GW. Green line is Hornby. Red line is NASDAQ.

Now I know a company that outperforms Nasdaq, that outperforms its leading UK rival, isn't doing quite as well as that company that some bloke I met read about somewhere on the internet. But a lot of people would kill for a share performance like this.



Now, personally I believeit is one of banes of modern UK business that CEOs care more about share performance than they do about customer satisfaction, and it's for that reason that, I believe, German manufacturing has outperformed Brit manufacturing over the last few decades. But this debate is about what GW are worth, and the notion that they're going to hell in a handbasket is categorically refuted by these figures, which are on the record, audited, and not some unverifiable spiel written somewhere on the interwebs...