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.

I'll be honest, I like the Nephilim. Then again I play Sisters and over the top model designs are my bread and butter.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I like the Nephilim. Then again I play Sisters and over the top model designs are my bread and butter.

I think we're more talking about rules and how they perform on the table.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I like the Nephilim. Then again I play Sisters and over the top model designs are my bread and butter.

I think we're more talking about rules and how they perform on the table.

The model's aesthetics get harped on a lot which is why my mind went there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

@KthuluQball:

I haven't seen Knights quite that often and only this week finished building and painting one for use in an Apoc game.

Also Heldrakes aren't the beasts they once were now that the weapon is hull mounted, not turreted.

That's what is cool about our 40k, everybody has a different little slice of experience. Don't get me wrong, I love playing against Knights. Its sometimes frustrating as hell, but it's always been a fun game. Although I've come to waking up in a cold sweat thinking about Stomp Attacks almost as much as I did with Markerlights...

Heldrakes are still respectable flyers, even if no longer OP. I'm cool with that nerf too, because the Heldrake still fills a niche in my CSM army, they're fun to play, the model is awesome and its no longer considered a d*ck move to take em.

...In the end, GW wants to make money, and I am totally cool giving them mine as long as the quality of the models continue and the game is supported in some fashion.

Now, the day that GW stops selling my plastic crack is the day I start to get real itchy and babies start crawling on ceilings...

Redacted. If you want to try again, without being intentionally inflammatory, you're welcome to try. --Janthkin

Ofc I dont think the above is true or makes much sense, it was fun to write though.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

No, the point is not about whether or not I'm their target market, it's that their supposed choice of target market is incredibly stupid. Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. I'm sure every company would love to be in a situation where they had millions of customers like that, but in the real world you can't depend on selling to gullible rich people. You have to make a product that normal people want to buy, so if you're correct about GW's choices then it's an alarming sign of incompetence.

 Peregrine wrote:
Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. .

Not quite. What they're aiming for is people who either ignore the game rules and just want to buy the pretty miniatures, and people who don't much care that the rules aren't perfect.


And from my experience, those two groups do make up most of GW's customer base, and always have.

 insaniak wrote:
Not quite. What they're aiming for is people who either ignore the game rules and just want to buy the pretty miniatures, and people who don't much care that the rules aren't perfect.


And from my experience, those two groups do make up most of GW's customer base, and always have.

The original post I was responding to suggested GW's target market had even lower standards than that, but even what you're saying here is just inexcusably bad management. It makes no sense at all to only sell to people who don't care about the quality of half your product when, for only a modest increase in costs, you could fix the broken rules and expand your market to include the people who do care about having good rules. It's killing GW now, and even when GW wasn't in such bad shape financially they could have been making even more profit. But unfortunately GW is run by a combination of clueless managers who don't understand why playtesting isn't just "playing games on company time" and "casual at all costs" rule authors who seem to think that doing their jobs properly would be the worst kind of heresy. And both groups need to be fired for their incompetence.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. .

Not quite. What they're aiming for is people who either ignore the game rules and just want to buy the pretty miniatures, and people who don't much care that the rules aren't perfect.


And from my experience, those two groups do make up most of GW's customer base, and always have.

I am both groups in practice, though I do hope for (and want) a tighter game i just don't let that get that in the way of having fun with what I have available.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

No, the point is not about whether or not I'm their target market, it's that their supposed choice of target market is incredibly stupid. Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. I'm sure every company would love to be in a situation where they had millions of customers like that, but in the real world you can't depend on selling to gullible rich people. You have to make a product that normal people want to buy, so if you're correct about GW's choices then it's an alarming sign of incompetence.

Games Workshop is the top of the line when you get to wargaming miniatures. The range, the flexibility, the customizability, the reliability, and the detail available in their plastic models have never (to my knowledge) been replicated. They're banking on that, they're going for people who are going to care about that instead of those who are going to take a look at their game, notice it's not competitively balanced, and start complaining.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Games Workshop is the top of the line when you get to wargaming miniatures. The range, the flexibility, the customizability, the reliability, and the detail available in their plastic models have never (to my knowledge) been replicated.

Err, no. If you assume that fluff is a subjective preference the only thing GW really has these days is the sheer size of their product lines. Their prices are incredibly high, design quality is inconsistent, level of detail is nothing special (and pathetic by non-wargaming standards), and lots of kits are effectively unbuyable because they're finecast. And even their customization options start to look a lot less impressive if you don't have a huge budget to spend on conversion parts. They're certainly adequate for their purpose, but unless you already love the 40k/WHFB settings they don't really stand out from their competition.

They're banking on that, they're going for people who are going to care about that instead of those who are going to take a look at their game, notice it's not competitively balanced, and start complaining.

And that's a really stupid way to run a company. Why would any sane person voluntarily throw away large sections of their potential market (and, worse, hand those customers directly to their competition) just to save a fairly small amount of time and money? Fixing the rules isn't all that hard, the only thing stopping GW from selling to both of types of customer is their own incompetence.

Rules FAQ and Errata is just about the cheapest thing you can do, you take the most common questions, give them to the person who wrote the book, and have them type up some answers. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. Likewise for Errata for major game balance issues.

Every other game company on the planet can manage this, I'm not sure how or why GW either finds it so amazingly difficult or just doesn't care.

Right. GW has spectacular models including awesome tanks and whatnot which few (if any) other manufacturers can match.

The game is kinda cool too, I guess.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

No, the point is not about whether or not I'm their target market, it's that their supposed choice of target market is incredibly stupid. Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. I'm sure every company would love to be in a situation where they had millions of customers like that, but in the real world you can't depend on selling to gullible rich people. You have to make a product that normal people want to buy, so if you're correct about GW's choices then it's an alarming sign of incompetence.

Games Workshop is the top of the line when you get to wargaming miniatures. The range, the flexibility, the customizability, the reliability, and the detail available in their plastic models have never (to my knowledge) been replicated. They're banking on that, they're going for people who are going to care about that instead of those who are going to take a look at their game, notice it's not competitively balanced, and start complaining.

Id say that Malifaux has better detailed plastics.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Rules FAQ and Errata is just about the cheapest thing you can do, you take the most common questions, give them to the person who wrote the book, and have them type up some answers. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. Likewise for Errata for major game balance issues.

Every other game company on the planet can manage this, I'm not sure how or why GW either finds it so amazingly difficult or just doesn't care.

Maybe, along with overpriced website, they bought a product that makes PDFs, but GW gets charged thousands of pounds every time they run it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

No, the point is not about whether or not I'm their target market, it's that their supposed choice of target market is incredibly stupid. Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. I'm sure every company would love to be in a situation where they had millions of customers like that, but in the real world you can't depend on selling to gullible rich people. You have to make a product that normal people want to buy, so if you're correct about GW's choices then it's an alarming sign of incompetence.

Games Workshop is the top of the line when you get to wargaming miniatures. The range, the flexibility, the customizability, the reliability, and the detail available in their plastic models have never (to my knowledge) been replicated. They're banking on that, they're going for people who are going to care about that instead of those who are going to take a look at their game, notice it's not competitively balanced, and start complaining.

Id say that Malifaux has better detailed plastics.

But they don't have kickass tanks, and I'm a treadhead.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But they don't have kickass tanks, and I'm a treadhead.

Sure, but that's a subjective aesthetic preference, not an objective quality advantage for GW. And remember that Bolt Action and FoW both have tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But they don't have kickass tanks, and I'm a treadhead.

Sure, but that's a subjective aesthetic preference, not an objective quality advantage for GW. And remember that Bolt Action and FoW both have tanks.

True, and I play both those games as well.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think thats it at all. GW is out of touch with their customers is all. We don't want a beer and pretzels game where losing can be part of the fun. We want a cutthroat futuristic battle simulator. We want brood-wars on the tabletop. We want to win. Thats all.

I want a fair fight, honestly fought, where I don't lose or win because of a difficult to interpret rule or that the Codex author rolled a 6 when he started writing my faction's latest book, but because I made better or worse decisions than my opponent and with maybe a hint of luck.

This. It doesn't bother me losing in the slightest bit. What bother me is losing to some gloating with no sense of strategy who thinks playing some super OP net-list from whatever broken codex is the current cock of the walk, that requires no skill or strategy to win with. I'll take a win or a loss just as happily, just give me a fair fight that's one or lost by the skill of the player. Hell, some of my favorite matches have been ones that I lost, but after seven turns of head to head, neck and neck struggle against a balanced list.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think thats it at all. GW is out of touch with their customers is all. We don't want a beer and pretzels game where losing can be part of the fun. We want a cutthroat futuristic battle simulator. We want brood-wars on the tabletop. We want to win. Thats all.

I want a fair fight, honestly fought, where I don't lose or win because of a difficult to interpret rule or that the Codex author rolled a 6 when he started writing my faction's latest book, but because I made better or worse decisions than my opponent and with maybe a hint of luck.

This. It doesn't bother me losing in the slightest bit. What bother me is losing to some gloating with no sense of strategy who thinks playing some super OP net-list from whatever broken codex is the current cock of the walk, that requires no skill or strategy to win with. I'll take a win or a loss just as happily, just give me a fair fight that's one or lost by the skill of the player. Hell, some of my favorite matches have been ones that I lost, but after seven turns of head to head, neck and neck struggle against a balanced list.

Methinks GW needs their own "Page 5"

 Squidmanlolz wrote:


Methinks GW needs their own "Page 5"

I'm afraid I don't know what that means. I'm assuming it's a reference to another game, but not one I'm familiar with.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
[quote=Squidmanlolz 636660 7611921 7dfef8b08b63f61e4eecdb5580299a68.jpg

Methinks GW needs their own "Page 5"

I'm afraid I don't know what that means. I'm assuming it's a reference to another game, but not one I'm familiar with.

The problem is the studio staff who WANTED to write better rules for 40k , (this started about 2000-2001 ish.)
Was they were told by the corporate management that the 40k rules are good enough for model collectors, which is GWs new target demographic.
So if they wanted to write their rules their way, they would have to write their rules somewhere else.
(Which many have done since then, and we have had some excellent games because if it!)

Every edition of 40k since 3rd edition has been 'compromised' in some way by the corporate management /sales department at GW plc.

Can we have a quick look at the numbers...
To employ a full staff of game developers and professional proof readers and editors.Along with well run and professional levels of play testing and managing feed back.
Would cost GW plc less than £500,0000 per year.

Currently GW plc are spending over £50M on their own chain of B &M stores, to promote isolationalist sales, because 40k and WHFB can not compete in the open market.

IF GW plc had still kept players as primary customers as well as collectors.They would have a turn over in excess of £300M .

So doing the job 'properly' costs 1/2 a million pounds .But could net you up to an extra 200 million pounds a year turn over ,

So unless you are isolated at the top of an ivory tower, wanting to take out as much money as possible in share bonuses over the next few years before you retire.
Who would not invest in proper game development...Oh wait...

Lanrak wrote:
The problem is the studio staff who WANTED to write better rules for 40k , (this started about 2000-2001 ish.)
Was they were told by the corporate management that the 40k rules are good enough for model collectors, which is GWs new target demographic.

This doesn't make much sense. I could see GW management saying "the rules are good enough, we're not spending money on them" if GW didn't keep spending time and money on new editions every few years. But what we actually see is a company that is writing and printing new rules as fast as they can, and spending almost as much time and money on bad rules as it would take to make good rules.

Also, don't forget that GW's rule authors have always been a bunch of "casual at all costs" players who insist that the game is about "beer and pretzels" and it doesn't matter if the rules are perfect because nobody who cares about fun would ever do anything like take an overpowered unit or argue for a rule interpretation that favors their army. Awful balance and poorly designed rules have always been a problem, the only difference now is that GW is losing their near-monopoly and more people are realizing that GW's competition is doing a much better job of making games. GW's management sucks, but at some point you just have to accept that their rule authors aren't very good at writing rules and give them their fair share of the blame.

IF GW plc had still kept players as primary customers as well as collectors.They would have a turn over in excess of £300M .

Proof for this? I agree with the general idea that GW could be making more money with a better game, but I seriously doubt that anyone can put a specific number on that increase.

Hi Peregrine.
As far as the GW corporate management are concerned the 'rules for collectors' are to inspire sales.So they must make the 'thought' of 40k battles sound cool.And in particular the new models must be seen to be 'special' .(With as many special rules /cool sounding rules as possible to inspire sales. )

So the new edition rule and codex books are released to drive sales, as collectors need to be frequently reminded how 'cool' the latest releases are.(Other wise they may forget to buy something! )

The fact that the quality of the sculpts and artwork appeal to collectors anyway, seems to be lost on GW corporate.

GW game devs have not always been 'casual at all costs'.Long ago many 'specialist' games were comparativley well balanced and we had many happy years playing them.(Epic and Blood Bowl were my favorites.)
But as the corporate management and sales department set the goals of the game developers to focus on maximizing returns on short term sales.Those wanting to write good games, simply left, and wrote good rule sets for games at other companies.

And those left at GW plc are good at writing the 'inspiring rules ' to accompany the 'cool looking models,' each release.(Well inspiring those that like cool sounding rules , over well written games anyway.)

I totally agree if GW plc were interested in growing a player base long term,(like the other game companies,) their practices make no sense at all.
But when the man calling the shots is only looking at short term share bonuses, short term profit at the expense of long term growth makes sense to him.


I agree that the current game developers at GW towers would need more time to refocus the 40k rules than a development team made up of those developers that have left GW plc behind.
(If Rick P, and Andy C were allowed to use the rules they wanted for 3rd ed, 40k, and 4th ed 40k respectively, 40k would be a much more focused game with much more clarity and brevity in the rules.)

The current game developers are just following the design brief the sales department give them.
Having seen the quality of rules written by devs after they leave GW towers, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
To apply a poorly mixed metaphor..
Lions led by donkeys, rather than just jackasses all the way from top to bottom.

The £300M turn over was just a forcast based on annual reports and rate of growth back when GW were producing games with more focus on game play.(1987-1997
It may be more than they could actually achieve now there is so much competition.

(But at the height of the LoTR boom GW plc had over this sort of turn over,adjusted for inflation and price rises.)

Achieving £200m turn over should be a realistic goal in to days market conditions.IMO.

Everyone but Tom Kirby thinks this...
ADD MORE VALUE TO PRODUCT by writing good rules .
Rules with clarity brevity and intuitive interaction.The sort of rules everyone benefits from.
Cost so little in terms of %turn over , and has the potential to grow market share far more than any chain of B&M stores possible could.


Tom Kirby's view.
BUT this costs money that I could pay myself in share bonuses short term with.And who cares about a piddling little game of toy soldiers beyond the foul smelling basement dwellers I have been wallet raping for decades.
More share bonuses I say!

Game is broken not because of Dire Avengers being 5 men at minimum. FMC is the reason why.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. .

Not quite. What they're aiming for is people who either ignore the game rules and just want to buy the pretty miniatures, and people who don't much care that the rules aren't perfect.


And from my experience, those two groups do make up most of GW's customer base, and always have.

I think insaniak is definitively right about this, and that GW has been very successful in catering to an audience that was less gameplay-driven and more models-driven. It makes me think of all the "Forge the Narrative" stuff they put out- GW would probably prefer it if they could get to producing fluff-only books that cost the same as hardcover codexes and their fans would be content buying the books and models and just talking about how awesome their models are...perhaps making "whoosh" and "pewpew" noises as they do. Obviously, that point probably will never come, but I have a feeling it's at least an aspiration of the plastic Leige.

Now, I believe there's a disconnect about how much of a game players want versus how much GW think is important. I think the level of agreement between the two used to be much more similar, but the cost of game supplementing materials became much much more expensive. It was like GW and a 40k fan are standing there, and both say "the rules for 40k aren't really that important" and GW says "they certainly aren't, so you won't mind if we raise the price of the codexes/rule books, take units out of books, and go the old DLC route, right?"

The rules now do matter because you're paying out the nose for them. Gaming in 40k has become so prohibitively expensive, both to start-up and maintain, that fans are expecting much higher quality for the things GW is putting out. And I think that is leading to the downfall of the game eventually from a well-known behemoth to something much more on the scale of WMH/Maulifax/Infinity. Which is sad to watch, seeing where they came from.

 Peregrine wrote:

Boniface wrote:
I think that's a little OTT, lol.

Not by much. Publishing a rulebook this bad is the kind of incompetence that would get you fired in any other company/industry and probably end your career. Maybe not everyone would commit suicide in response to that, but it should certainly inspire that level of shame in the authors.

I dunno, there are definitely some weird things, like making the 'new hotness' in space marines and Tau also their new models, instead of fixing some basics.
In Tau broadsides and Riptides were clearly made to be better, can't sell those rail versions of broadsides, people have them, let's make a new version (any money we see rail make a comeback in the future). Centurions for example seem like broadsides +1; more shots, better AP and ability to move.

On the other hand you have the Tau flyers, new models with terrible rules. I think there's a lot of confirmation bias involved in the whole "GW makes overpowered stuff to sell models" thing, and the truth is that GW just sucks at writing rules in general. We remember the times they screw up memorably and make a new model an expensive must-buy, and we mostly forget the times they screw up and make terrible new units.

The Tau flyer rules are not merely terrible. They are nonfunctional. Any bomber that cannot drop bombs ever does not deserve it's existence acknowledged.

Specialist games used to be both well-designed AND super casual, but then they got canned.

If GW could have kept that style of game-management, I would still be spending money on their rules material. I will still pay their exhorbitant costs on the occasional new kit because it looks awesome, but there's no way their rules material is worth what they price it at. If their rules and 40k codex books were worth $50 each, they wouldn't have to replace them with new versions so fast - they would be able to survive with rules releases like Privateer Press. At least with them you don't have to buy a book to keep using your existing models every couple of years.

They add plenty of books with new material, but even if you started playing one faction of WM way back with Prime Mk1, you would have nothing like the pile of Space Marine codexes you would have if you had started playing them with 2nd or 3rd edition till now.

I think insaniak is definitively right about this, and that GW has been very successful in catering to an audience that was less gameplay-driven and more models-driven.

But that makes no sense as far as generating sells goes. If someone likes lets say a tac marine model, how many boxs will he buy ? one. Serpents, riptides? same. Buy one and master class paint with added conversions. How many models will a person that plays the game buy? as many as are needed for a list. So if 4 serpents are needed to get a good list, he will buy 4. If he needs 4 valkyrias he will buy 4. Better yet, the player will buy horrible or bad designed models as long as they are effective, while the collector won't buy models he doesn't like.

If GW wanted to generated bigger sales, they would write their rules in a such a way that a maximum number of units would be used. IMO the books that were , some still are, seen as OP or game breaking are the only good ones they made. There are very few units in the eldar codex that no one wants to use, same with the old GK codex. For me those books were the good designed ones .

Now the question is, did GW make those GK or eldar books that way , with an intention to make most units usable or was this just an accidental thing.