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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

Doubtful. If you have a good source that GW just has a vault of money for them to McScrooge Duck dive into I'd like to see that.

soviet13 wrote:

De facto is two words and I know what it means. What do you think they have a de facto monopoly on? Wargaming? Their own models? How do they maintain this monopoly?

Ah yes, we're going back to the well of pedantry because we are losing the argument...

I notice you are a relatively new player based on the basic painting question you asked elsewhere on this forum, trust me; I've been around the block- whilst GW does not have a monopoly in the literal sense it essentially has one due to several internal and external factors. Even in environments where this should not be the case with gamers having multiple options available to them they only choose to stick with GW because they know it is a safe bet due to the sheer dominance they have.

I've played in several locations and the story is the same everywhere. It's cyclical as people only play GW games as GW games are the only games people play. Gamers are reluctant to break away from it for whatever reason so GW knows they can rake them over the coals and know they'll either have to lap it up or go elsewhere, which they cannot do on their own as, much like social media or a phone network a player base is exponentially more valuable the more people that make it up, one player is useless as you need at least two.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

Doubtful. If you have a good source that GW just has a vault of money for them to McScrooge Duck dive into I'd like to see that.

I am not trying to be rude here, but do you understand what a profit margin is? Because your comment kinda makes it sound like you don't.

If you want to know about GW's financials, that's all available online in detail. I'm not privy to some special source of secret info that gave me their numbers.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-19-Press-statement-final-1.pdf

Suffice to say that they literally have more money coming in than they can do anything productive with. That's why they have a 28% profit margin. Companies that have things to spend their money on to generate returns don't run 28% margins, it makes no economic sense, it's just giving money to the taxman for no reason, which sophisticated companies don't do.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

Doubtful. If you have a good source that GW just has a vault of money for them to McScrooge Duck dive into I'd like to see that.

Their accounts are a matter of fething public record mate. The fact you don't understand this has pretty much torpedoed any credibility you have.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

Doubtful. If you have a good source that GW just has a vault of money for them to McScrooge Duck dive into I'd like to see that.

investor.games-workshop.com

Knock yourself out. All the info Azreal is quoting is there. GW are a publicly traded company.

Suffice to say that they literally have more money coming in than they can do anything productive with. That's why they have a 28% profit margin. Companies that have things to spend their money on to generate returns don't run 28% margins, it makes no economic sense, it's just giving money to the taxman for no reason, which sophisticated companies don't do.

Precisely this, the profit they declare is (or should be at least assuming their accountant is even slightly competent) the smallest figure they can feasibly get away with.

 Grimtuff wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

De facto is two words and I know what it means. What do you think they have a de facto monopoly on? Wargaming? Their own models? How do they maintain this monopoly?

Ah yes, we're going back to the well of pedantry because we are losing the argument...

I notice you are a relatively new player based on the basic painting question you asked elsewhere on this forum, trust me; I've been around the block- whilst GW does not have a monopoly in the literal sense it essentially has one due to several internal and external factors. Even in environments where this should not be the case with gamers having multiple options available to them they only choose to stick with GW because they know it is a safe bet due to the sheer dominance they have.

I've played in several locations and the story is the same everywhere. It's cyclical as people only play GW games as GW games are the only games people play. Gamers are reluctant to break away from it for whatever reason so GW knows they can rake them over the coals and know they'll either have to lap it up or go elsewhere, which they cannot do on their own as, much like social media or a phone network a player base is exponentially more valuable the more people that make it up, one player is useless as you need at least two.

I've been in this hobby since 1988. Thanks though.

If GW have a monopoly then how do you explain the people in this thread talking about all the cool and cheaper alternatives?

 Azreal13 wrote:


Their accounts are a matter of fething public record mate. The fact you don't understand this has pretty much torpedoed any credibility you have.

The credibility of someone arguing on a public forum. Besides the public information you don't have anything of the Companies strategy? So everything you're going off is public record only?

GW doesn't have a monopoly, but what it does have is extremely strong brand commitment and a closed hobby universe, both of which have similar results to a monopoly in terms of how it creates demand curves that are inelastic to price pressure.

Horses can be lead to water, but...

...cigars are sometimes just cigars?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Their accounts are a matter of fething public record mate. The fact you don't understand this has pretty much torpedoed any credibility you have.

The credibility of someone arguing on a public forum. Besides the public information you don't have anything of the Companies strategy? So everything you're going off is public record only?

What?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Their accounts are a matter of fething public record mate. The fact you don't understand this has pretty much torpedoed any credibility you have.

The credibility of someone arguing on a public forum. Besides the public information you don't have anything of the Companies strategy? So everything you're going off is public record only?

You don't need confidential business information to read a financial report. You were the one who raised an objection to the profit margin that didn't really make much sense if you understood what a profit margin was, and demanded proof of GW's financials. That proof was provided.

The fact is that for several years now GW has been making substantially more money than it can put to productive use. That's why it has the margins it is, margins that would make no economic sense for a business that does have productive uses for that money.

Review of GW's financials shows pretty clearly there is no reinvestment purpose behind this price increase. It's designed to maintain or increase margins, not to fund reinvestment.

Edit: Got it out of my system.

You guys got me. Great job you won an argument on the internet about the financial decisions of a billion dollar corporation. Here is a gold star for you.

You don't have to apologize for being wrong, I'm just glad we could straighten things out and now everybody agrees.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Their accounts are a matter of fething public record mate. The fact you don't understand this has pretty much torpedoed any credibility you have.

The credibility of someone arguing on a public forum. Besides the public information you don't have anything of the Companies strategy? So everything you're going off is public record only?

You don't need confidential business information to read a financial report. You were the one who raised an objection to the profit margin that didn't really make much sense if you understood what a profit margin was, and demanded proof of GW's financials. That proof was provided.

The fact is that for several years now GW has been making substantially more money than it can put to productive use. That's why it has the margins it is, margins that would make no economic sense for a business that does have productive uses for that money.

Review of GW's financials shows pretty clearly there is no reinvestment purpose behind this price increase. It's designed to maintain or increase margins, not to fund reinvestment.

You guys got me. Great job you won an argument on the internet about the financial decisions of a billion dollar corporation. Here is a gold star for you.

“We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right” -Brian Clough

Yes, yes we did...

 Vaktathi wrote:

stratigo wrote:


Marketing isn't business ethics, nor is it ethics of any sort. You're not a PhD in philosophy. Indeed, marketing classes are more focused on technique.

Methinks you're confusing marketing for advertising. Advertising is a subset of marketing. Marketing is the understanding, managing, and communicating of the value chain and relational exchanges. It is how one determines what the market wants, what markets or segments you want to serve, how you create products and work with customers to best meet those needs and communicate the presence and value of your product (the advertising bit) to the market, and, in a for profit enterprise, in a way that maximizes return.

GW still doesn't operate off of supply and demand.


Supply and demand isn't how many businesses operate, and many businesses thrive on creating inelastic supply so they can charge thousands for, say, insulin, something that people need or they die. Supply and demand only works on the most general level, but companies have spent billions figuring out how best to mitigate any drops in demand. It takes things like literally the world shutting down from a pandemic to really shake demand.

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

GW's products do not have inelastic demand. They have run into such issues before, the cost of getting into WHFB by its 8th edition tanked that product line, and their mishandling of the 40k 6E-7E era saw 40k get knocked off the top selling tabletop wargaming perch (albeit not permanently) for the first time in a generation and competition from other games (especially FFG's X-Wing) ate their lunch, and they have more meaningful competition than they did in previous eras. They very much operate off of supply and demand. They have however, increasingly chosen to serve a higher end market segment than they previously did. This is expressed in many ways, such as how they don't do paperback B&W codex books anymore but instead do more expensive hardcover full color books. Characters that used to be simple infantry models or that used to be roughly Dreadnought sized often are redone to be truly huge and impressive centerpieces (Greater Daemons, Nagash, etc).

Likewise GW did not create a monopoly, they don't force retailers to only carry their product, or only host events for their games. While in many places they often are the only consistent game in town, this is much less true now in 2020 than it was in years gone by, and it's not because GW ran all the other games out of town or did something to prevent them from being played.

None of that has anything to do with ethical business practice though. Indeed, most businesses are not ethical at all. Particularly the more successful ones.

The example of inelastic demand is to underline the point that business is NOT ethical. It doesn't work for the benefit of the consumer. When demand is inelastic, like health services, we get to see just how badly behaved businesses are. Unethical behavior for pursuit of profit is the norm, restrained only somewhat by government intervention and public will. Both of which companies spend billions to manage in lobbying, PR, and marketing. And GW is, structurally, not so different from a company like Eli Lily. They just don't have a product that the lack of which will kill you.

GW does try to create an effective monopoly, and they DO see success at this. Ironically, their ridiculous pricing is kind of counter productive to this, since they could likely afford to amazon a number of their competitors in aggressive savings, kill them, and then jack the prices up again. Actually, they did do this. Over this edition. They utilized more aggressive cost saving measure like bundles and smaller games to help undercut other hobby companies. And now that the damage of the kirby years is undone, well boy are prices starting to rise dramatically across the board again. Funny that.

GW doesn't need to "force" retailers to sell their games. FLGS aren't their competitors. They're just retailers, GW isn't a retail company. GW is more than happy to work through FLGS that survive the pandemic. GW tries to get people that buy from retailers, and the retailers themselves, to buy mostly THEIR product, and not the product of their competitors. GW would likely be willing to put the screws on FLGS is, well, they were the biggest fish in the pond. But, man, GW has no candle to MTG, and Hasbro DOES put the thumbscrews on FLGS from time to time. And don't get me started on MTG's business model.

As for events, GW is taking a much bigger role in dictating their direction. I suspect, in the not to distant future, some events for the smaller companies will drop off. But Asmodee (owners of FFG, and themselves owned in that standard business nestled nonsense by an investment group so trying to tell who has say in what is pretty damn difficult) isn't going anywhere, and they have an actual leg to stand on to fight GW with the star wars license (also, ironically, super over priced products). Big events are big enough to not be forced to choose. Most communities do not have this luxury.

GW is doing what all companies try to, and that is to create for themselves a monopoly. This is just what companies do, the natural end state of success. They aren't fantastically successful, sure. But they do experience a fair bit of success in the wargaming market, thank in large part to just being the biggest dedicated fish in the pond. But remember, it's a small pond. At any moment a real shark could come in and swallow the market whole. And most people would cheer, since the prices would drop. At least until GW and most other hobby companies were dead, or bought out.

soviet13 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

De facto is two words and I know what it means. What do you think they have a de facto monopoly on? Wargaming? Their own models? How do they maintain this monopoly?

Ah yes, we're going back to the well of pedantry because we are losing the argument...

I notice you are a relatively new player based on the basic painting question you asked elsewhere on this forum, trust me; I've been around the block- whilst GW does not have a monopoly in the literal sense it essentially has one due to several internal and external factors. Even in environments where this should not be the case with gamers having multiple options available to them they only choose to stick with GW because they know it is a safe bet due to the sheer dominance they have.

I've played in several locations and the story is the same everywhere. It's cyclical as people only play GW games as GW games are the only games people play. Gamers are reluctant to break away from it for whatever reason so GW knows they can rake them over the coals and know they'll either have to lap it up or go elsewhere, which they cannot do on their own as, much like social media or a phone network a player base is exponentially more valuable the more people that make it up, one player is useless as you need at least two.

I've been in this hobby since 1988. Thanks though.

If GW have a monopoly then how do you explain the people in this thread talking about all the cool and cheaper alternatives?

GW have an Oligopol, they are the market leader due to their Closed system approach, no other miniature or TG company that produces similar type games comes close, there are others but they are entirely dependant on GW especially in regards to 3rd parties. GW goes up, they go up aswell.

No they don't, an oligopoly is a market dominated by a small number of suppliers.

Realistically they're simply the market leader. There might be an argument that they're a legal monopoly (they're in a place of disproportionate influence on the market) but they're not an economic one.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No they don't, an oligopoly is a market dominated by a small number of suppliers.

Realistically they're simply the market leader. There might be an argument that they're a legal monopoly (they're in a place of disproportionate influence on the market) but they're not an economic one.

i'd have put them under Price setters, because of the massive influence they have over other suppliers in that regard which would put them into an oligopolist position but yeah a legal monopoly is also likely.

soviet13 wrote:
If GW have a monopoly then how do you explain the people in this thread talking about all the cool and cheaper alternatives?

See, thing is... GW games are the D&D of tabletop miniature games. Yes, they're by no means the only one (hell, there's literally thousands of RPGs out there), and once in a blue moon they might have been somewhat in trouble (the start of the V:tM era, the end of the OGL and the rise of Pathfinder... although I'm not even sure that one counts, because it's D&D in anything but the name), but... they're the one that counts.

And for many, many people (one could probably argue "most"), "D&D" and "RPG" are synonyms. Whenever most people say something about RPGs? They're talking about D&D. And the very same happens with "GW" and "miniature tabletop games": for most people, they're one and the same.

People who go online to talk about RPGs or miniature tabletop games? We're a drop in the pond. We're not representative of almost anything about these hobbies.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No they don't, an oligopoly is a market dominated by a small number of suppliers.

Realistically they're simply the market leader. There might be an argument that they're a legal monopoly (they're in a place of disproportionate influence on the market) but they're not an economic one.

i'd have put them under Price setters, because of the massive influence they have over other suppliers in that regard which would put them into an oligopolist position but yeah a legal monopoly is also likely.

There can't be any sort of oligopoly because there's nobody even close to GW's economic position, let alone two.

I'm not sure you're using the word in the way you intend.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No they don't, an oligopoly is a market dominated by a small number of suppliers.

Realistically they're simply the market leader. There might be an argument that they're a legal monopoly (they're in a place of disproportionate influence on the market) but they're not an economic one.

i'd have put them under Price setters, because of the massive influence they have over other suppliers in that regard which would put them into an oligopolist position but yeah a legal monopoly is also likely.

There can't be any sort of oligopoly because there's nobody even close to GW's economic position, let alone two.

I'm not sure you're using the word in the way you intend.

could be, long time away from my economic classes.
Fact is they are in a position to dominate the market to an nigh absolute degree.

If you think GW isn't retail, I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere, as their products are primarily sold, supported, and used through retail establishments, and they have hundreds of their own retail Warhammer stores. Not quite sure what to say about that.

Likewise, bundles aren't new, they've done those literally every edition of every game they've made, they just sucked in terms of value in some editions (but not all).

Not sure why we're harping on GW's ethics for catering to an expensive segment, nobody is forcing people to buy their luxury hobby pastime product, comparisons to inelastic demand issues or large megacorps are rather silly. As for GW being a monopoly, again, there's all sorts of other games out there, GW doesn't do anything to force retailers to carry their product or not carry those of their competitors, and there's plenty of room for those competitors to operate. They are the biggest fish in the pond, but that's it. If people are really that concerned about GW's hold, Play Something Else or stop buying new product. Their price increases have certainly meant that's my choice. The GK army I'm painting now doesn't have any new purchased in the last 5 or 6 years, mostly it's all second hand hand 3E models, GW isn't seeing a dime from me on that count, and I've instead put a lot more money into building a collection of Heavy Gear mini's.

could be, long time away from my economic classes.
Fact is they are in a position to dominate the market to an nigh absolute degree.

Lol, I bet it's not as long a time as me!

There's no way you could argue they're not hugely influential, I'm just loathe to throw around words like monopoly when we don't have a clear idea of the overall size of the market globally, and even the definition of what GW's market really is. Model kits is a much larger creature than wargaming models, and model kits itself is a subset of construction toys.

GW dominates wargaming, but they're no Lego

So earlier someone, maybe Filbert, asked what we expected to accomplish, and I gave a flippant answer. I’d like to give a better one now.

Many posters here have noted that GW is a business, and businesses have goals, and tools they use to reach those goals. And they seem to accept that. But at the same time they lash out at consumers using consumers’ tools to achieve consumers’ goals.

Now, unless you’re happy that the prices are getting even higher, almost all of GW’s customers have the same goal: to keep the prices from going up again, or to make prices more reasonable for varying values of reasonable. Consumers’ tools are mostly social; we have a better ability to affect the discourse around a product and the shape of public opinion of that object than we have of directly influencing any of GW’s actual decision makers. When every conversation of GW products becomes about their displeasing pricing habits and every conversation about their rules becomes a reminder that there are better games available for cheaper, we will start to have an impact. When we shift public perception again, we’ll have an impact. When customers near-uniformly feel a sense that they are being ripped off on price or rules or community, we’ll see an impact. When local gaming groups decide to try new games or whales hesitate on their way to the register GW will start to feel the impact.

Don’t say it can’t be done. We’ve done it before. We saw the impact the consumers can have on the company at the end of the Kirby era.

Yeah they now got a hypocritical PR department...

Remember the promises of 8th, rules in Indexes , better balance etc.
Don't get me wrong but the social discourse is difficult for us consumers to organise because we are alot of people. It also doesn't help that our most organized Group the tournament Lot, rather Bend the knee over for monetary gain then to actually Stop the nonsense of playtesting practices of gw or Table shortening etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Remember the promises of 8th, rules in Indexes ,

They literally had an article about codexes on Warhammer Community a week before the 8th edition rules were released, so what promises on Indexes didn't they keep?

 Ghaz wrote:
so what promises on Indexes didn't they keep?

there was nothing about that the Index Books did not contain all the features of the new Editions like Stratagems etc
making the promis of balance invalid as soon as the first Codex hit

at least here in the local club a lot of people who pre-ordered were really put down as the saw that the exicting new stuff is not there and they still need to wait for their Codex

 kodos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
so what promises on Indexes didn't they keep?

there was nothing about that the Index Books did not contain all the features of the new Editions like Stratagems etc
making the promis of balance invalid as soon as the first Codex hit

at least here in the local club a lot of people who pre-ordered were really put down as the saw that the exicting new stuff is not there and they still need to wait for their Codex

Yes this, well and how the balance Overall developped with ynnari , castellan and his 32 oathsworn and then the great 70% winrate underpowered marines .