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.

Orlanth wrote:I am suprised Cairnius was foolish enough to have his original opinion at all, that Rackham existed for artistic purposes

Whoa whoa WHOA whoa whoa whoa whoa.

When the F did I say that Rackham existed for artistic purposes? I get in enough trouble for the opinions that are mine, without you getting me in trouble by putting blatantly false ones in my mouth, Orlanth.

I've never said anything even REMOTELY akin to that once. Ever. If anything I've criticized Rackham in the past for NOT doing everything they can to make money, like good marketing and p.r. practices. I want them to make as much money as possible so that the game sticks around.

Honestly, Orlanth, I've made my peace with the rules. I house-rule anything I don't like, and it's not really the actual rules I ever had a problem with but their syntax and how they are laid out in rulebooks which can make them difficult to learn when you are first learning the game and the way in which the rulebooks are often no real help in solving questions at the table. I really think with a few tweaks they can solidify the rules well, but quite honestly I'm bored with discussing what those rules could be.

Rackham Entertainment is going to do what it is going to do. I never wrote anything I wrote with any illusions of effecting company policy. So I am just going to sit back and watch, and purchase the new minis as they come out and finish my existing collections until I have at least one of everything.

To that end, I want them profitable so they can eventually, maybe, someday, get to producing the transports.

Cairnius wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I am suprised Cairnius was foolish enough to have his original opinion at all, that Rackham existed for artistic purposes

Whoa whoa WHOA whoa whoa whoa whoa.

When the F did I say that Rackham existed for artistic purposes? I get in enough trouble for the opinions that are mine, without you getting me in trouble by putting blatantly false ones in my mouth, Orlanth.

Ok, I can accept that I misrepresented your opinions, as we have never met.

Cairnius wrote:
Six years ago, the business manager of Rackham at the time asked me: “what’s the objective of Rackham?” and I replied: “to make pretty miniatures." I had it all wrong, and he immediately told it to me, quoting: “No, the objective of Rackham is to make money”. The conversation lasted 5 seconds and was enough to change my view on things.

However I based my interpretation fairly upon the above comment.

Cairnius wrote:
Honestly, Orlanth, I've made my peace with the rules.

The rest of the post was nothing about you Cairnius, I have my own disagreements with how Rackham does things and was speaking my own mind. To me the release schedules need reorganising notably to focus on covering existing lines rather than create new ones and by collapsing many of the rqaces for Confrontation, 15+ factions is too many. Warhammer doesnt have that many full factions and is far better established. Rackham is trying too much, I weould currently delay Krygs until 2011 also, instead adding a new supplement and fresh units for each of the six extant armies if anything at all. This is after maintaining coverage of existing lines, and the transports promised. Secondly the rules need a thorough fixing. I did mention that the later was of no cost to the company, this is true if 2nd edition rules are available are released on the internets - at least on a provisional basis.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pombe wrote:
The internet has actually made this problem difficult, I think. Depending on the strength of various currencies, customers may actually find it more affordable to buy from other countries online. This can be disastrous to the local FLGS community. To be honest, I am still curious as to how GW survives in Australia. Seriously. I once stopped in the Games Workshop store on Queen Street in Brisbane. I thought maybe I'd buy something GW related as a souvenir of my travels. I saw the prices and walked out before the Red Shirt could even ask me a question. I think it will be very hard to compete in the local market and the internet market at the same time depending on where the FLGS is. Maybe there's something I don't see?

Aussies are shafted because of long range shipping and poor exchange rates. While expensive (this is not the place for yet another GW pricing thread) the base UK price is understandable to some degree. The base price for AT-43 is in Euros, and it is most expensive in that form. The product gets shipped to France who ship to the USA where it is sold cheaper, while this sort of shenanigans is common with the Uk auto parts trade it doesn't do for a toy company. Like with the Uk price for GW it should be logically cheapest in France. It isn't because Rackham bean counters don't know how not to suck.

Orlanth wrote:

Cairnius wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I am suprised Cairnius was foolish enough to have his original opinion at all, that Rackham existed for artistic purposes

Whoa whoa WHOA whoa whoa whoa whoa.

When the F did I say that Rackham existed for artistic purposes? I get in enough trouble for the opinions that are mine, without you getting me in trouble by putting blatantly false ones in my mouth, Orlanth.

Ok, I can accept that I misrepresented your opinions, as we have never met.

Cairnius wrote:
Six years ago, the business manager of Rackham at the time asked me: “what’s the objective of Rackham?” and I replied: “to make pretty miniatures." I had it all wrong, and he immediately told it to me, quoting: “No, the objective of Rackham is to make money”. The conversation lasted 5 seconds and was enough to change my view on things.

However I based my interpretation fairly upon the above comment.

For the record that quote was not by Cairnius. In his post he starts by stating that there is a text floating on the web translated from French. He then pastes that translation into his post. You (Orlanth) then quoted from that part of the post thinking it was something that Cairnius had said.

Yeah, what he said. That was all from Nicolas Raoult, as it says in the first post where I quoted him.

Don't know who he is other than someone who works for Rackham Entertainment...