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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

Priestely doesn't anymore, which is why he started Gates of Antares early 2013. I think it was one of the BoW video-interviews he did promoting that Kickstarter? I remember him saying he wasn't allowed to to sci-fi and fantasy for many years due to some clause (hence did historical at Warlord Games), and took a stab with Gates of Antares once that clause lapsed.

It is only my guess that the Perry's would have similar issues (and other sculptors, e.g. Juan Diaz, who does Japanese Historicals now?).

On the other hand, Ronnie Renton of, now, Mantic Games obviously "got out" without an anti-competition clause, though he wasn't a sculptor or game designer (and ironically the far more dangerous "future-competitor"). So it's not a given, I guess.

That would fit for him, considering his position at GW when he left.

I would be more surprised if the Perrys are similarly restricted, as they now effectively freelance for them, and it must be nearly impossible to pin down what does or does not constitute a breach, if CHS vs GW has taught us anything, it's how specific something has to be to be protectable.

I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals, or feel that's a niche they can better exploit than any outside limit.

"Non-Competes" are a bit more specific (usually) and a bit more cut and dry than IP suits though...

 Alpharius wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

This is, of course, Great News®™!

What do you want?

I've already offered to bet a year of DCM against anyone doubting my logic. Nobody so far had the balls. You're up to it Alphy?

No Brets in 2014, You'll sponsor me for 2015, a new Brets book in 2014, I'll sponsor you for 2015. How 'bout it?

We can set longer dates, but it might be tedious to track it.

 Alpharius wrote:
"Non-Competes" are a bit more specific (usually) and a bit more cut and dry than IP suits though...

I honestly don't know how you'd phrase it though?

"Don't sculpt anything on dragons, unicorns or any other fantasy mount"

"Ok, here's my sculpt of a bloke riding a winged lizard. "

"But that's a dragon!"

"Kindly produce a source that objectively and empirically defines what the differences are between a dragon and flying lizard are, and then show me how my sculpt isn't a flying lizard."

"...."

Plus, anti competes have to demonstrate harm to the business, and with something that is as subjective a purchase for the consumer as miniatures, you'd have the devil's own job proving that a customer who bought their model would have purchased yours, and only yours, if it didn't exist, as the consumer may not like your version and would never have bought it regardless.

Largely playing devils advocate here, but I have direct experience of this (worked for an employer who had me under one, who was suing my predecessor for breaching hers, and I left that job to work for the competition. My boss got nowhere, but I had to be sure!) and I know how hard it would be to pin them down.

If anything does happen i am guessing they will merge them with other factions.

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

Splendid attempt at a strawmanning there Zwei.

A preference =\= not enjoying something else.

Also I actually thought that was the reason they left anyway, that they wanted to do more historicals as that was their passion, and working exclusively for GW didn't allow that.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

You do read like you just conjure all your ideas straight from your own arsehole sometimes.

Sometimes?

jk

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

You do read like you just conjure all your ideas straight from your own arsehole sometimes.

I think he just likes arguing with people. Different strokes, I guess.

Anyways, if the rumors about GW starting to do compendium army books are true, I wouldn't be surprised if the Brettonians get rolled into a Kingdoms of Men book, though I'd rather see them included in a "non-aligned" compendium with Wood Elves and other neutral forces.

~Tim?

I'm not big on the WHF lore, but is there enough to do a "neutral" book? Aside from the wood elves what, lizardmen? I personally hope the Bretonians do indeed get a new book and plastic crack.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
I'm not bog on the WHF lore, but is there enough to do a "neutral" book? Aside from the wood elves what, lizardmen? I personally hope the Bretonians do indeed get a new book and plastic crack.

I wouldn't say "neutral", but rather more "elemental" would work for Wood Elves, Lizardmen, and Ogre Kingdoms.
All three are forces that aren't strictly good or evil, but rather they are just there.

I'm thinking what we're seeing though is factions which still have kind of a weird set-up(Bretonnians and their mandatory cavalry, Wood Elves with their overabundance of archers and the Eternal Guard which are a Core or Special choice depending on the leader choice still being metal/Finecast) or older kits for some of their Core choices(Tomb Kings with their skeletal cavalry and infantry) being pulled back to be sold direct/special order only.

Aren't High Elf infantry being done the same way? I know that Lothern Sea Guard are only available via Direct Sales but not sure about Archers/Spearmen/Silver Helms. I never see boxes of them at my local GW but the independents have them...which really doesn't mean much, as it could simply be leftover stock that has not sold.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

Someone I know well is a good friend of the Perrys, having been involved with them in military re-enactment stuff. So, can absolutely confirm that this is the case.

Although.. TBH, one look at their website, and the effort and detail they put into their sculpts (which are surely some of the best on the market) would confirm that regardless.

 Zweischneid wrote:
They Perrys do what they do because like other ex-GW-creative staff (e.g. Rick Priestely), they have an anti-competition clause upon leaving. They aren't allowed to do (more profitable) high-fantasy (just yet)

According to their website the day job is working for GW.

Have I missed something and the Perry's no longer work for GW? I thought they exclusively worked on the LOTR/Hobbit range for the past few years but were still at GW.

willb2064 wrote:
Have I missed something and the Perry's no longer work for GW? I thought they exclusively worked on the LOTR/Hobbit range for the past few years but were still at GW.

I understood them to be 'guns for hire' now, that GW bring in to work on certain lines, and that this arrangement had been in place for quite a while.

Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

However GW cant get over its skulls and other grimdark overlay. It works with chaos, somewhat works with the Imperium and flat out fails with Empire and Bretonnians.

Empire looked right before they had a skull makeover. Bretonnians looked right when they were more Morte D'Arthur shining knights and less peasant crushing grimdark.

WFB needs something closer to a white hat faction. A light grey would do, and High Elves arent enough.

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Do the Perry's still sculpt Fantasy for GW any more? I thought the majority of their GW output was LoTR/Hobbit stuff these days.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Wow! Some people are so shielded from the real world!

Firstly, if fantasy humans didn't sell they wouldn't have been included in most of the Warhammer starter boxes and secondly have a look outside your little GW fanboy world, you'll find that the Perry historical lines are some of the most popular out there and the GW bits they do are more likely the pin money side projects.

Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Zweischneid wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Appears to state opinion as fact.

When challenged, claims was always opinion and never fact.

When someone else makes opposite claim with just as much evidence, denies it by stating opinion as fact again.

Bravo.

Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Appears to state opinion as fact.

When challenged, claims was always opinion and never fact.

When someone else makes opposite claim with just as much evidence, denies it by stating opinion as fact again.

Bravo.

Again. Double-standards.

If Orlanth says "Fantasy humans sell" (stated, as you claim, as a "fact" and without citation), I respond on the same "level", assuming we are all discussing things on the basis of reasonably available information and without first-hand insight into either GW's or Perry's accounts.

The fact that you keep bringing this up to derail my side of the argument, but not, say, Orlanth equally "simplified" claim demonstrates your bias in this. I don't see the need for absolutely academically correct citation in every single post, especially if I already said this very thread, that this is not what I intend to do, unless everyone adheres to this principle.

I heard GW is going to bring Space Marines into WFB. It's a rumor and could be true. Period. You can't argue against it. Period.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I heard GW is going to bring Space Marines into WFB. It's a rumor and could be true. Period. You can't argue against it. Period.

I am assuming this is hyperbole?

Either way, how does this apply to "Fantasy humans are selling well" any differently compared to "Fantasy humans are not selling well"?

Both points can be argued, including pointing to other companies (Perry, Mantic Games) have been cited to support one side or the other.

If you are not convinced by my argument, fine. I can live with not being convincing.

But to demand "unshakable proof" for the argument of "Fantasy humans don't sell well", while blithely accepting the argument of "Fanasy humans sell just fine" is a biased prejudice that makes any discussion impossible.


That said, adding some type of "steam-punk-space-marine"-style unit is not the worst idea to get the Empire (or Brets?) out of the red numbers. It's what works, obviously, whereas ... as argued previously, faux-historical Fantasy humans (in my very humble logical conclusion) don't.

At the very least, it's a lot more plausible than Brets ever getting a new book

Fantasy humans can be said to not be selling well because Fantasy isn't selling well. We know the entire game range has fallen very low in sales recently. And to add to that, we also know GW's entire product range has decreased in sales over several recent years.

But fantasy humans not selling well as a percentage of fantasy sales? I've now asked this question of several former GW design folks, who all agreed that Empire has always been in the top 5 armies and that Brets were certainly top 3 during their re-imagining during the release of 5th edition.

If the Brets get the treatment, it will be a result of lack of promotion and a number of other GW policies on the wider landscape, rather than players disinterest. They are getting the SoB treatment, so interest in them has waned. It's the same self fulfilling prophecy as GW's 'astonishment' at the sales of Space Marines, which are promoted on everything they do.

Space marines in fantasy. It's not impossible. I remember the old Chronopia game, which had such kind of an army, which actually was space marines with swords, axes and maces and a living god emperor.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Oh my God, is he still on about this? 4 pages of the thread and it's been one guy saying "nuh uh, guys, fantasy humans don't sell because I say so". Seriously. Humans sell. I've bought them. I have 5 friends in a SMALL gaming town that have bought them. That's just Empire. I know another 4 guys who bought Bretonnia. I realize my area is a small slice of the pie, but when there are about 15-20 players in the area and there are a collective 9 human armies among those 20, that shows far more proof than your views of "because I said so." But, I won't convince you, just as nobody else will, because you have your own bubble. Keep on living your psychedelic delusions where humans are a smear on the foot of every fantasy enthusiast.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Fantasy humans can be said to not be selling well because Fantasy isn't selling well. We know the entire game range has fallen very low in sales recently. And to add to that, we also know GW's entire product range has decreased in sales over several recent years.

But fantasy humans not selling well as a percentage of fantasy sales? I've now asked this question of several former GW design folks, who all agreed that Empire has always been in the top 5 armies and that Brets were certainly top 3 during their re-imagining during the release of 5th edition.

If the Brets get the treatment, it will be a result of lack of promotion and a number of other GW policies on the wider landscape, rather than players disinterest. They are getting the SoB treatment, so interest in them has waned. It's the same self fulfilling prophecy as GW's 'astonishment' at the sales of Space Marines, which are promoted on everything they do.

Well, I've talked to stores and ex-GW guys, and Empire (and, presumably Brets, though I didn't inquire about them) were always bottom, despite many massive (costly and futile) attempts to boost them.

The best placing I ever found for them online was 8th, though I think that is "higher" than they usually rank.

I'm finding it pretty hard to find any evidence of relative Warhammer army popularity. A couple of forums had polls which were pretty evenly spread but also very small number of participants (I think I've seen more armies in my local store than participated in most polls ). One poll Empire was equal 3rd with Bret :O

The pie chart you posted was for a single store and they included no data to say how they got their numbers or the absolute value of the numbers, as such, I don't think it's any more conclusive than walking in to any FLGS and asking the manager what army is most collected. In other words, it's not remotely conclusive. Tomb Kings are most popular? I barely see any Tomb Kings armies around here.

The reason you're copping so much criticism on your "opinion" of human fantasy armies being unpopular is people don't agree with your assessment.

Of course it's not black and white of being supported and it'll sell... but if it's not supported it sure as hell won't sell.

Lets use myself as an example, and I'm sure this would be true of a lot of people. Of all the armies I collect, I 1) Started Lizardmen largely because they were in the boxed set and my friend had already taken the Brets (I wanted the Brets myself, but he'd bought the box and started painting them before I started). 2) Started Tyranids when their 3rd ed Codex was released, and all of my major Tyranid buys have been associated with new Codices (except most my Genestealers are from the old Space Hulk boxed set). 3) Started Space Wolves in 2nd edition for no good reason, but bought most my SW stuff when the next Codex came out. 4) Started Brets when their "current" Army Book came out. 5) Started Wood Elves when their "current" Army Book came out. 6) Started Orcs and Goblins when they were in the boxed set (alongside Empire, which my friend started at the same time), also bought most my Night Goblins because of Battle for Skull Pass. 7) Very briefly started (then dropped) an Ork army at pretty much exactly the same time GorkaMorka was out.

If an army doesn't get good support, new Army Books, new models, being featured prominently (a good example for Brets would be the "Full Tilt" game). And it does have to be "good" support, the current Tyranid Codex hasn't inspired me to restart my Tyranids because half the models I like are terrible (I own a lot of Stealers, Raveners, a few Lictors... basically all the crappy things ).

Brets might not get another book, they might, I personally won't see either outcome as being indicative of the popularity of fantasy humans. GW are stupid enough to drop an army with potential, they're also stupid enough to botch the relaunch of a potentially popular army and they're also just as likely to continue with an army that is not popular.

The "fantasy humans are not popular" thing doesn't gel with me unless you have some conclusive evidence of it, as it goes against my own observation of fantasy humans being popular.

Faeit 212 thinks the sky is falling withthe full 100% squatting of bretonians, wood elves, beastmen, and tomb kings. All 4 completely removed from the game and future production halted.