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 don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?

-Guardsman- wrote:
...Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that?...

Bingo. They're afraid if they write rules for things that aren't specific configurations in kits they sell they're giving up business to third-party bits manufacturers.

GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW

 kodos wrote:
GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW

indeed, its now so petty that basic weapon or head swaps are getting retired (see banshee exarchs, marine biker heroes any DE hq options etc)

but of course the hobby is buying GW models all else is witchcraft

It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.

-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits

To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.

There's a few sides to this I think

1) No model no rules. Lets face it GW in the past had models appear in several codex that never got a model along with weapon options as well. Not everyone can or wants to convert and not everyone knows or wants 3rd parties - and not every "no model" even gets a 3rd party release (much less one popular enough everyone knows about it).

Furthermore its very offputting to a newer gamer to have really cool weapon and model options that they basically can't play. Or as any game to have things you're "waiting for the official one" to appear when they should be just around the corner. Tyranids had several "hero" class units that never manifested as a model, for example.

2) As a company who makes models, having concepts in your rules that don't make it to a consumer product within a sensible span of time (or ever) is clearly a bad idea. You're dividing your user base into those who convert and those who don't; then dividing it further into 3rd party users and not - with the latter being important because anyone gaming in "your" GW stores can't use the 3rd party as an option.
So you're fragmenting and frustrating your customerbase.

3) GW does have to consider that 3rd parties are a "risk" to their income. Perhaps not as bad as it was thought under Kirby, but they are a risk. It's a double risk if GW is releasing things on paper and not as models because then the 3rd parties get a field day with no competition from GW.

Of course this point is contested by the fact that GW still has things ilke finecast aspect warriors for eldar and many "new" models that get a partial release and then nothing for a year or more (see several double box releases for AoS).



5) Posing and design. GW has clearly shifted from fairly static poses with posable parts (which in all truth were never THAT dynamic to start with); into far more dynamic poses, but reduced variety of parts.

6) GW is still one of the few model lines with lots of custom parts in the box. Whilst we almost demand it if GW, most other model companies are 1 model 1 pose and that's it; with some variety within troops, but still totally fixed monopose builds.

What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?

 kodos wrote:
GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW

maybe they would lose more money if they invested money in to creating new molds, desiging new options on sprues and not get the returns they expect could be worse then losing some sells to 3ed party creators.

If GW was at all competent with rules writing a monopose model is static in it's rules. It has a predetermined profile with predetermined options that can be written around and planned for. As long as GW is insisting on TLOS monopose is better for the game.

But they are not. So the rules have nothing to do with this. It's just IP stuff.

Cronch wrote:
It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.

they've already simplify playtesting by farming it out to folks who seem to know the game and basic maths better than them, then ignoring feedback if it doesn't fit someones pet idea (see Ironstone and unmodified 6's)

For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.

 Llamahead wrote:
What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?

Literally never. Blue stuff, printed bits, or macguyvered items.

 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.

Bingo.

Another thing to mention is that resellers are actually..incredibly good and easy customers to deal with.

They buy in bulk, providing reliable sales. They don't complain about dumb stuff like fluff, or rules balance, or whatever.

Honestly, selling to resellers lets GW act something like an MLM corporation: They're selling with basically no markup to someone who is going to markup the product FURTHER and try to make a profit.

It wouldn't surprise me if anti-consumer decisions like Blood of the Pheonix or Reaper Chaincannons/CSM Terminator CHainaxes were designed to cater specifically to this super easy to please market segment.

 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.

How do they make money OF idiots? I can't imagine it being a worthwhile investment to produce an idiots to currency printing press.

Also, it's not idiocy, it's a value calculation. Do I: A. Buy the kit that has the thing I need, even though I don't really need the whole kit. B. Buy 'official' bits off ebay. C. Buy third party bits. Or D. Waste hours of my day, and of my very limited hobby time, playing sculpter to make something that vaguely resembles the parts I need.

B and C are usually the best value in terms of time and dollars, obviously, but sometimes A works out fine. Buying another retributor kit gives me the multimeltas I need, while also letting me finish up my heavy bolter squad AND giving me another chainsword SisSuperior.

Spending less dollars on something doesn't make it inherently a 'better deal'. If you spend hours building cyclic ion cannons that end up looking like crap(like the majority of 'scratchbuilt' or 'sculpted' components do) you could quite possibly come up with an equation of time spent vs quality of output that makes buying a couple of commander kits the better deal.

The true idiot is the guy that hits that point but still brags about how much he 'saved' because he doesn't understand that time isn't free.

They make money everytime a kit is sold - they don't care what happens after that kit is sold is what I am saying. They are selling lots of kits. Probably more kits because of their evil ways of monoposing and limited options.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.

In the past, I've personally bought kits that I otherwise wouldn't have bought, just for kitbashing purposes. Including a Librarian on foot, a GSC Magus, and Melusai Blood Sisters.

There's your 100% feelings-free proof, Mr. Spock. (Unfortunately I haven't kept the receipts, so you'll have to take my word for it.)

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
indeed, its now so petty that basic weapon or head swaps are getting retired (see banshee exarchs, marine biker heroes any DE hq options etc)

But at that point, why do the kits even need so many bits?

The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

.

 Xenomancers wrote:
because of their evil ways of monoposing and limited options.

 Llamahead wrote:
What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?

GW kits are too expensive for me to buy entirely for conversion although I definatly do plenty of "bits box diving" the MK3 space marine kit is REAAALLY useful if you need to clip a chain sword to a character's belt

-Guardsman- wrote:


The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

.

This has everything to do with casting in plastic as opposed to metal or resins. Basically plastic injection moulding can only achieve certain shapes and outside of those shapes and constructs they are impossible. The option is to either simplify the pose with big ball joints; or to slice the part up into smaller segments. At the same time its also clear that GW is doing a lot to actually hide joining lines. A lot of the more modern models have natural cover points or hide up the joining areas. This can result in some creative cutting of the parts as well.

Personally I really like it and its a clear sign that GW has a team/someone working for them who really knows their stuff well (its likely that working with a computer is also helping as it lets them make much more creative angles than slicing up an actual model). An easy one to compare is the shoulders on Mortek Guard compared to the Eldar Wraiths I've been building. Wraiths have no seam protection so the shoulders have a join line right through the middle; the mortek guard on the other hand have a small recess and a cover-over part so that the join, once made, is totally invisible to the viewer.

On one hand I like the idea of having limited options, because then your conversion doesn't matter. Take AOS for example, if a model comes equipped with an Uber Doomsword, then it doesn't matter if my particular model has an axe, or a spear, or a halberd or whatnot. It's an Uber Doomsword.

However, I find the move to what are basically monopose kits with multiple parts to be disheartening. I have fond memories of laying out pieces of a kit and then spending time deciding just how they would go together such that each model told a story. Brother Flavius has an MkV shoulder pad with a MkVI helmet and a bolter with a marksmanship award for his skill, while Brother Remus, the newer member of the squad, wears typical MkVII armor without any particular adornments, etc.

That has slowly been eroded to where the kits now only go together in one way, with very limited choices in how you can assemble them without major conversion work, resulting in squads that look 100% identical if you buy multiple kits. At least before, while you could end up with identical models, there were often subtle differences between them.

Ever since Chapterhouse GW took the wrong idea and feel it's "stealing" from them if you buy 3rd party bits, even if you bought one of their models for the base, so have slowly begun to make it harder and harder for third party bits sellers to make their bits while at the same time giving less and less options, presumably because their idea of getting bits is buying another kit.

 Overread wrote:

The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

This has everything to do with casting in plastic as opposed to metal or resins. Basically plastic injection moulding can only achieve certain shapes and outside of those shapes and constructs they are impossible. The option is to either simplify the pose with big ball joints; or to slice the part up into smaller segments.

I guess the technology to mold both legs together in a single bit (as seen on... oh... virtually every plastic model until fairly recently) is a long-lost STC. Hopefully the Adeptus Mechanicus can recover it.


.

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?

Someone already said so, but this.

There was a ruling that said that if they don't make a model for it, they don't get to exercise copyright over it. The whole no-model no-rules thing is a direct fallout from that case, because GW needs to do so or risk losing their copyright.
As an additional observation, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.

Asprin. Cellophane. Dry ice. Kerosene. Linoleum. Trampoline. (These are genericized trademarks rather than lost copyrights, but the principles are similar.)

(What trademarks are generic varies by jurisdiction, some of these may not be generic if you don't live in the US.)

 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.

They've sold devastators with less than 4 of each heavy weapon since at least as long as I've been playing. The IG rifle squad from like 2002 only has a grenade launcher and a flamer when the squad can take meltaguns and plasmaguns too.

This isn't new, and isn't new since Chapterhouse, which I want to say was like 2012.

I'd say the Sisters of Battle box with 4ea special weapon is a new thing against the historic trend rather then a new conspiracy to deprive people of enough plasmaguns. Maybe it'll become a trend, hopefully.

That's not what the ruling said. That's how GW interpreted and continues to interprets the ruling, 'cause apparently retaining even one competent IP lawyer would be a stretch too far.

Your additional observation is bang-on, though.

It's all terribly sad. I acquired a copy of the 3rd Ed. Witch-Hunters book recently; looking back at the contents really underscores how far GW has fallen.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.

Asprin. Cellophane. Dry ice. Kerosene. Linoleum. Trampoline. (These are genericized trademarks rather than lost copyrights, but the principles are similar.)

(What trademarks are generic varies by jurisdiction, some of these may not be generic if you don't live in the US.)

Yeah that.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
That's not what the ruling said. That's how GW interpreted and continues to interprets the ruling, 'cause apparently retaining even one competent IP lawyer would be a stretch too far.

Your additional observation is bang-on, though.

It's all terribly sad. I acquired a copy of the 3rd Ed. Witch-Hunters book recently; looking back at the contents really underscores how far GW has fallen.

To be fair, it probably pays to be safe with something so important to the company like it's IP rights.

Wayniac wrote:

However, I find the move to what are basically monopose kits with multiple parts to be disheartening. I have fond memories of laying out pieces of a kit and then spending time deciding just how they would go together such that each model told a story. Brother Flavius has an MkV shoulder pad with a MkVI helmet and a bolter with a marksmanship award for his skill, while Brother Remus, the newer member of the squad, wears typical MkVII armor without any particular adornments, etc.

IMHO i feel even though you have the choices with the older kits to glue them up however you want, 90% of the times they all look the same away as they only ever look right in one orientation anyway. with some exceptions.

no real excuse for lack of full squad options outside of the actual cost of another die with only squad weapons. im sure it wouldn't be that much different if all the body parts are on one sprue and a second spure had all the weapons.

Even if you want to be super-picky and say that you could only alter the placing/angle of the waist, arms and heads on the old models, that is still three more opportunities than we have on these new monopose travesties and we still have 60 troops with only ten pairs of legs - if you're really lucky - between them.

It is, IMO, a definite loss from the modelling perspective.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits

To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.

I bought more kits then than I do now and I would buy more if conversions and especially consistency were a thing... by consistency I mean that i would buy primaris if they were consistent with my existing collection and so on. Then I could mix and match and convert. As it is I will never buy another marine model again.