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.

 Yonan wrote:

 Reinholt wrote:
There is no reason GW can't make things work; they just won't.[/color]

Pretty sure there's been a substantial brain drain hasn't there? All the skilled people have been replaced by those that can say "yes!" emphatically enough. They may very well be completely unable to release a good system now.

This is similar to why I think those saying Kirby stepping down will be a change for the better are being way too optimistic. The idea of hiring a board member on the basis of "attitude, not experience" is telling - I fear the whole culture within the boardroom is too Kirbyesque to be able to change in time.

 Reinholt wrote:
Designing a strategy game is not rocket science; you can find designers. Hell, you could broadly copy the ideas of other good games and just playtest them. If GW lacks the internal talent to do this, the solution is fire the terrible employees and hire better ones.

Again, it's not that they cannot do things, it's that they refuse to do them. A healthy management team could turn GW around quickly by displaying merely an average level of competence.

The issue as I see it is not can they change the course of the ship with new talent. It's can they afford the ride? Their cash reserves vs operating expense, to me looks like they can't afford to keep losing sales while spending money to revamp.

Hence my suggestion of releasing specialist games (and not at overinflated stupid GW pricing) and using that revenue stream to allow them to stay afloat while making the course correction.

It must be possible to create a new game in a spin-off setting like Necromunda did. Maybe a single-based movement fantasy game based 2000 years on from the Fantasy world of Sigmar, give them some better technology, merge the races a bit and introduce some new ones. Less focus on magic and more on science, and tap into the steampunk thing.

That'd get them something that fits in with their existing IP but can't really be used across games, and can still use heroic 28mm minis.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Specialist Games seems like the most risk-free option, but they'd have to get it through their heads that any profit is good profit, it's not garbage if it's not your big game.

Basically this.

If I was in charge, I would split 40k into two and a half games (I won't pretend to know how Fantasy should be handled). Game 1 would be "40k proper", rewinding 40k as we know it back to a 3rd edition level of complexity, with a focus on large-ish, streamlined, balanced battles. Move the flyers and superheavies back to Game 1.5, an Apocalypse type expansion, where I believe they worked just fine (and hell's sake, fix the flyer rules so futuristic jets aren't dog-fighting over a postage stamp size patch of earth). And Game 2 should be a true skirmish game for 20 or so models and a vehicle or two, or less. Let this absorb some of the little details that need to be cut to reduce the rules bloat in 40k proper.

As a bonus, now you have an updated skirmish game engine. Use this as the core for a new Necromunda, new Gorkamorka, new Inquisitor RPG-ish skirmish game, etc, the same way the 2nd edition rules were the core engine for NM and GM in the past.

Bring back a fleet game and a 6mm or 10mm game. Work on campaign expansions that help players bridge between the various systems. Encourage them to build complete collections in all your specialist games so they can run a sector-wide fleet campaign (BFG) that results in a planetary invasion (6mm) that has an important battle (40k proper) that culminates in an Inquisitor and his Deathwatch retinue battling a Genestealer cult to kill the Magus beneath a hive city (40k skirmish). The Specialist games always held this promise. GW should have explicitly provided material and support for these games to make it easy enough for any gaming group.

For the record, I don't think it's too late to start making these changes. But I do think the company is too risk-averse. And when I say 40k is saturated, I obviously mean "40k the game" and not 40k the setting. They could explore a million different directions in different games. Instead they will mutate 40k even harder, until it turns into a pile of disorganized limbs.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Specialist Games seems like the most risk-free option, but they'd have to get it through their heads that any profit is good profit, it's not garbage if it's not your big game.

Basically this.

If I was in charge, I would split 40k into two and a half games (I won't pretend to know how Fantasy should be handled). Game 1 would be "40k proper", rewinding 40k as we know it back to a 3rd edition level of complexity, with a focus on large-ish, streamlined, balanced battles. Move the flyers and superheavies back to Game 1.5, an Apocalypse type expansion, where I believe they worked just fine (and hell's sake, fix the flyer rules so futuristic jets aren't dog-fighting over a postage stamp size patch of earth). And Game 2 should be a true skirmish game for 20 or so models and a vehicle or two, or less. Let this absorb some of the little details that need to be cut to reduce the rules bloat in 40k proper.

As a bonus, now you have an updated skirmish game engine. Use this as the core for a new Necromunda, new Gorkamorka, new Inquisitor RPG-ish skirmish game, etc, the same way the 2nd edition rules were the core engine for NM and GM in the past.

Bring back a fleet game and a 6mm or 10mm game. Work on campaign expansions that help players bridge between the various systems. Encourage them to build complete collections in all your specialist games so they can run a sector-wide fleet campaign (BFG) that results in a planetary invasion (6mm) that has an important battle (40k proper) that culminates in an Inquisitor and his Deathwatch retinue battling a Genestealer cult to kill the Magus beneath a hive city (40k skirmish). The Specialist games always held this promise. GW should have explicitly provided material and support for these games to make it easy enough for any gaming group.

For the record, I don't think it's too late to start making these changes. But I do think the company is too risk-averse. Instead they will mutate 40k even harder, until it turns into a pile of disorganized limbs.

So basically the way it was handled in 4th edition with Apocalypse?

Which was far more well implemented in 4th edition than it currently is.

Fliers and giant walkers break the game and make it an unnecessary game race. Where everyone needs to get the best vechiles. As it completely invalidates all the troops. As troops currently are instana killed by vechiles and fliers. How many people have fliers in their lists? Almost all of them?

Why? Because they are brokenly stupidly powerful.

Herzlos wrote:
It must be possible to create a new game in a spin-off setting like Necromunda did. Maybe a single-based movement fantasy game based 2000 years on from the Fantasy world of Sigmar, give them some better technology, merge the races a bit and introduce some new ones. Less focus on magic and more on science, and tap into the steampunk thing.

That'd get them something that fits in with their existing IP but can't really be used across games, and can still use heroic 28mm minis.

You just invented Warmachine!

 Asherian Command wrote:

So basically the way it was handled in 4th edition with Apocalypse?

Yes, absolutely. Apocalypse was a good way to let people play giant battles with giant toys. it was still around in 6th, even. But it didn't sell enough giant toys, so now the line is completely blurred.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now don't say that. Facts do nothing but stain our bright white armour. Let's talk about the GFC some more, 'cause that only happened 6 years ago and is totally the reason why GW's 13/14 report is bad (except it's not bad - everything is fine!).

I assume this was a snipe at me - If you read my post I said it was a reason why GW might have focussed on its core games rather than risky new product releases. At no point have I suggested that the financials aren't negative, although imo GW is far away from collapse and has some very easy to implement solutions available to boost sales. I am however disappointed at how many gloaters there are [you brand anyone who doesn't join in the GW bashing a 'white knight', so I'll make generalisations too] trumpeting how wonderful it is that GW posted some negative financials. It's almost as though they have a personal reason to want GW to fail, despite spending their time posting on a website with an overwhelming 40k bias. The same 5 or 6 people always try to tear down any positive threads, inflate any negativity, and gang up on anyone who dares to disagree or have a more positive outlook. I ignore most of it because it boils down to 'hating' GW, because, GW.

Back OT - I think the role of GW shops in the US is different to the UK. In the UK [I would assume] most gamers play in a club, or round each other's houses. GW shops are more a place to buy models, unless you are too young to be in a club. Therefore the move to 1 man shops with the associated lack of gaming space wouldn't have such a negative impact. In the US most people [again I assume] need shops as a place to game, as clubs are far less prevalent. 1 man shops and reduced gaming is going to have a much larger negative impact, which could help to explain the poor sales in North America.

I remember when BFG and Inq came out, the idea of playing a campaign at all levels of an invasion was the best idea ever. A planetary battle leading to a large scale assault which led to a major offensive in a particular area which led to a strike force.

Such a shame that they didn't embrace it.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now don't say that. Facts do nothing but stain our bright white armour. Let's talk about the GFC some more, 'cause that only happened 6 years ago and is totally the reason why GW's 13/14 report is bad (except it's not bad - everything is fine!).

I assume this was a snipe at me - If you read my post I said it was a reason why GW might have focussed on its core games rather than risky new product releases. At no point have I suggested that the financials aren't negative, although imo GW is far away from collapse and has some very easy to implement solutions available to boost sales. I am however disappointed at how many gloaters there are [you brand anyone who doesn't join in the GW bashing a 'white knight', so I'll make generalisations too] trumpeting how wonderful it is that GW posted some negative financials. It's almost as though they have a personal reason to want GW to fail, despite spending their time posting on a website with an overwhelming 40k bias. The same 5 or 6 people always try to tear down any positive threads, inflate any negativity, and gang up on anyone who dares to disagree or have a more positive outlook. I ignore most of it because it boils down to 'hating' GW, because, GW.

Back OT - I think the role of GW shops in the US is different to the UK. In the UK [I would assume] most gamers play in a club, or round each other's houses. GW shops are more a place to buy models, unless you are too young to be in a club. Therefore the move to 1 man shops with the associated lack of gaming space wouldn't have such a negative impact. In the US most people [again I assume] need shops as a place to game, as clubs are far less prevalent. 1 man shops and reduced gaming is going to have a much larger negative impact, which could help to explain the poor sales in North America.

Do I need to re-post the number of threads shut down by GW apologists for rudeness and bullying as opposed to GW-critics? I'll give ya a hint, it's like 5-0.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I remember when BFG and Inq came out, the idea of playing a campaign at all levels of an invasion was the best idea ever. A planetary battle leading to a large scale assault which led to a major offensive in a particular area which led to a strike force.

Such a shame that they didn't embrace it.

I still do that for campagins. Who ever wins the space war gets bonuses, like 500 bonus points to spend on their list and they can go over.

If you lose a hero, that hero is out for the entire campagin.

They need to learn from their previous experiences.

But yeah it is a shame.

Why should Kirby change anything about GW? The company will survive a couple more years even if they actually start losing money they have cash reserves. He's 64, a couple more years giving himself dividends and it'll me time to sell up whatever is left. He's a multimillionaire. I don't see anything that suggests he's interested in the long term health of the company. By at least one account he doesn't even like science fiction.

David Pringle recalls, 'I think there was some pulling two ways between Bryan Ansell (who was all for the books) and Tom Kirby (who tended to be against them — I remember him telling me that he hated fantasy and that his favourite writer was Jane Austen).'

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I assume this was a snipe at me...

Yeah. And you deserve it. Ever. Single. Word of it.

And do you know why?

'Cause this report makes me mad. Very mad. And the reason for that is quite simple: For months - nay, years now - we've had the back and forth with the wilfully blind pro-GW crowd, the "Rah rah death to GW" people, and everything in between. I was prepared for the smug satisfaction of an "I told you so" from a select group of people should the report show GW's growth, and even I thought this report would show the growth that things like Marines, Knights and a new edition of 40K might bring. But guess what? It didn't.

The report is BAD. Things are going south for GW and no amount of blind white-knighting nonsense is going to change that. It's right there in fething black and white:



How much more needs to be said? You can make all the excuses in the world, but we know the reasons why. We see them every single day with this company. Stop trying to pretend like it's something else other than the people in the company mismanaging it.

Given that Reinholt understands what is going on and given that there is so much chatter going on about it I do wonder why the account handlers of these big investors haven't started asking questions. I understand that the interweb allows millions of opinions and theories, but there is no smoke without fire. You'd of thought some account handler somewhere might start wondering if there is something amiss and have a closer look!?

 Wolfstan wrote:
Given that Reinholt understands what is going on and given that there is so much chatter going on about it I do wonder why the account handlers of these big investors haven't started asking questions. I understand that the interweb allows millions of opinions and theories, but there is no smoke without fire. You'd of thought some account handler somewhere might start wondering if there is something amiss and have a closer look!?

You're misunderstanding the motivations of these large investors.

As my old Economics teacher was fond of saying, the trend of the stock market is always up. You just have to hang in long enough and, even with cliff edges and recessions, ultimately you should make a return, the only variable is how much. If the company in question pays a regular dividend then that's ultimately all you're looking for.

Most of the low level investors have already bailed in January, and the majority of those left are looking at making investments in terms of years and decades, not a quick buck in the course of a few months.

Alternatively, some may consider GW a ripe target for a takeover, which would likely cause a steep increase in share price, and be gambling on that happening, after all, if they've held stock for more than a year or two already, the current price still shows a good ROI, so why not?

WayneTheGame wrote:


While longterm the best strategy would be to do a complete rewrite of 40k's rules, going back to its roots as a platoon-level game with additional rules to scale down to skirmish a la Infinity (more detail?) or up to large battles (more streamlined), they'd likely face a huge amount of backlash for it; I was too young to care but does anyone from the 2nd -> 3rd transition remember if it happened then?

I just remember that 3rd edition sucked so bad that out group completely stopped playing 40K despite having multiple complete painted armies...

Also agree 100% with CalgarsPimpHand. 40k and WHFB should have been streamlined and balanced by now, and the supplements should have been things like FW has done - Vraks, Damocles, etc.

They have been working on 40K rules for 27 years and WHFB for 31 years and still can't write a tight, coherent rule set. Better than a quarter of a century of trying and they still can't pull it off. The length of time involved makes it a management problem. The toss up is whether management just doesn't care or is totally incompetent.

T

Howard A Treesong wrote:Why should Kirby change anything about GW? The company will survive a couple more years even if they actually start losing money they have cash reserves. He's 64, a couple more years giving himself dividends and it'll me time to sell up whatever is left.

The thing about having large cash reserves, a weak share price and not having a controlling stake in the company is that it makes you an attractive target for a takeover. If Kirby wants the exit to be on his terms then he has every incentive to change things.

Wolfstan wrote:Given that Reinholt understands what is going on and given that there is so much chatter going on about it I do wonder why the account handlers of these big investors haven't started asking questions. I understand that the interweb allows millions of opinions and theories, but there is no smoke without fire. You'd of thought some account handler somewhere might start wondering if there is something amiss and have a closer look!?

Because from an institutional investor point of view, GW really isn't important at all.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Given that Reinholt understands what is going on and given that there is so much chatter going on about it I do wonder why the account handlers of these big investors haven't started asking questions. I understand that the interweb allows millions of opinions and theories, but there is no smoke without fire. You'd of thought some account handler somewhere might start wondering if there is something amiss and have a closer look!?

Most investors don't care.

Keep in mind GW is tiny; unless a fund is very small, it probably represents basis points (a basis point is .01%) of exposure for most investment firms, or is held in individual accounts by either current employees or non-professional investors.

Part of why GW has gotten away with being managed so incompetently for so long is actually precisely what you have just noticed: there is no adult supervision because nobody cares. If I'm running a $1bn investment fund, and I own 5% of GW, that's still only roughly $15-$20mm worth of exposure.

It's the kind of thing you assign the intern or the first year analyst to as a learning experience.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Given that Reinholt understands what is going on and given that there is so much chatter going on about it I do wonder why the account handlers of these big investors haven't started asking questions. I understand that the interweb allows millions of opinions and theories, but there is no smoke without fire. You'd of thought some account handler somewhere might start wondering if there is something amiss and have a closer look!?

You're misunderstanding the motivations of these large investors.

As my old Economics teacher was fond of saying, the trend of the stock market is always up. You just have to hang in long enough and, even with cliff edges and recessions, ultimately you should make a return, the only variable is how much. If the company in question pays a regular dividend then that's ultimately all you're looking for.

Most of the low level investors have already bailed in January, and the majority of those left are looking at making investments in terms of years and decades, not a quick buck in the course of a few months.

Alternatively, some may consider GW a ripe target for a takeover, which would likely cause a steep increase in share price, and be gambling on that happening, after all, if they've held stock for more than a year or two already, the current price still shows a good ROI, so why not?

No I'm not. I know they are in it for the long haul, which is why I'm wondering why alarm bells aren't ringing. A lot of people, and that includes people who seem to know about this stuff are indicating that GW is on a downward slope. So if your investment plan is 5/10/15/20 years wouldn't you want to be sure that it's going to be worth something in the future?

I know people have mentioned take overs, but there is no guarantee of that happening. Is it feasible that an asset stripper could take an interest? If so is that good for an investor or bad?

Part of the problem of suggesting that GW might be able to turn things around by diversifying their product line (making a 3rd core game, bringing back Specialist Games, etc...) is that they've fully wedded themselves to the one-man GW store/webstore/marginalize FLGS sales path.

Those GW stores aren't large enough to carry GW's full line *right now* much less an expanded line. Without having stock "in store" it's hard to get new players to buy. I've talked with several GW managers and had them directly state (fully acknowledging that this is anecdotal, off the record, and info that's several years old) that they have a hard time getting people to start a new army because they can't even stock all the core/troops choices in their stores.

Web sales just aren't, yet (and possibly ever) ready to pick up the slack for getting people into inherently physical, social, hobbies like face-to-face miniatures gaming.

And with GW looking to marginalize the FLGS (to maximize GW's margin on sales), where are people going to get "hooked" on any of these new GW offerings (much less their current games!)? "Out of the way" one-man stores without full stock and no room to game? Online? FLGS' with little incentive to push your games?

It just amazes me that Mr. Kirby is claiming to play "the long game" when there is not a single item in his preamble about actually *growing*. it's all about cutting costs and (mischaracterized) future threats.

Out of the way stores with limited stock and hours, antagonistic relations with distributors and FLGS', high prices, ham-fisted attempts to bully alleged IP infringers, utter disengagement with social media.

Where, out of all of that, is "growth" supposed to come from?

Valete,

JohnS

 Reinholt wrote:
Designing a strategy game is not rocket science; you can find designers. Hell, you could broadly copy the ideas of other good games and just playtest them. If GW lacks the internal talent to do this, the solution is fire the terrible employees and hire better ones.

Again, it's not that they cannot do things, it's that they refuse to do them. A healthy management team could turn GW around quickly by displaying merely an average level of competence.

It isn't even that they do not have the staff. The lad, James, from Mantic games that went to the Studio a few months ago was heavily involved in the creation of Dreadball, I doubt he is alone here, and I think the way the rules are is simply because they are entirely dictated by the financial impetus to 'sell more'. It is the only reason I could see for the unbound in 7th, it is a way of shoehorning in a directive to allow everyone to buy everything.

NoggintheNog wrote:
It is the only reason I could see for the unbound in 7th, it is a way of shoehorning in a directive to allow everyone to buy everything.

Nah brah! It's to help forge a better narrative!

In other words I agree with you completely. Allowing everyone to summon Daemons is in the same boat.

timd wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


While longterm the best strategy would be to do a complete rewrite of 40k's rules, going back to its roots as a platoon-level game with additional rules to scale down to skirmish a la Infinity (more detail?) or up to large battles (more streamlined), they'd likely face a huge amount of backlash for it; I was too young to care but does anyone from the 2nd -> 3rd transition remember if it happened then?

I just remember that 3rd edition sucked so bad that out group completely stopped playing 40K despite having multiple complete painted armies...

Also agree 100% with CalgarsPimpHand. 40k and WHFB should have been streamlined and balanced by now, and the supplements should have been things like FW has done - Vraks, Damocles, etc.

They have been working on 40K rules for 27 years and WHFB for 31 years and still can't write a tight, coherent rule set. Better than a quarter of a century of trying and they still can't pull it off. The length of time involved makes it a management problem. The toss up is whether management just doesn't care or is totally incompetent.

T

It's funny you say that about the 2nd to 3rd transition, because really that's where the game should have been forked into two separate games. A more modern evolution of 2nd intended for skirmishes, and then proper 40k (3rd), which was actually a very good and necessary change to streamline the game. Hell, everything after 3rd has essentially been "3rd edition with extra stuff tacked on", so the bones of 3rd must have been pretty good - having started in 2nd as well, I know it was the contrast with 2nd that upset my group, not any issue with 3rd itself.

They should have let guys like Andy Chambers and Alessio Cavatore continue to evolve those games in the proper directions and refine them. Instead, they drove them out of the company. Like you said, I don't think management was ever really interested in improving 40k. Just making it different enough to sell again as a new edition.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

timd wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


While longterm the best strategy would be to do a complete rewrite of 40k's rules, going back to its roots as a platoon-level game with additional rules to scale down to skirmish a la Infinity (more detail?) or up to large battles (more streamlined), they'd likely face a huge amount of backlash for it; I was too young to care but does anyone from the 2nd -> 3rd transition remember if it happened then?

I just remember that 3rd edition sucked so bad that out group completely stopped playing 40K despite having multiple complete painted armies...

Also agree 100% with CalgarsPimpHand. 40k and WHFB should have been streamlined and balanced by now, and the supplements should have been things like FW has done - Vraks, Damocles, etc.

They have been working on 40K rules for 27 years and WHFB for 31 years and still can't write a tight, coherent rule set. Better than a quarter of a century of trying and they still can't pull it off. The length of time involved makes it a management problem. The toss up is whether management just doesn't care or is totally incompetent.

T

It's funny you say that about the 2nd to 3rd transition, because really that's where the game should have been forked into two separate games. A more modern evolution of 2nd intended for skirmishes, and then proper 40k (3rd), which was actually a very good and necessary change to streamline the game. Hell, everything after 3rd has essentially been "3rd edition with extra stuff tacked on", so the bones of 3rd must have been pretty good - having started in 2nd as well, I know it was the contrast with 2nd that upset my group, not any issue with 3rd itself.

They should have let guys like Andy Chambers and Alessio Cavatore continue to evolve those games in the proper directions and refine them. Instead, they drove them out of the company. Like you said, I don't think management was ever really interested in improving 40k. Just making it different enough to sell again as a new edition.

If you remember, the changes from 2d to 3d edition came at the expense of all of that "Growth" that came in that year before the evolution of the game to the point of company level.
Other examples include-

Expanse from the couple of games, and the D and D material, as well as the specialist games leading the evolution charge for new material.

Forgeworld, Black Library, and the other expansion companies.

Games Day/ Warhammer World and the corporate growth.

Rogue Trader Events ( Hunt for the Fallen being one of my first ones.)

Taking the company Public, and installing the Corporate structure that used and abused their talent/ stores like a bunch of fascists.

AND... the great revolt of the original games designers who then took their talent elsewhere, to leave Jervis and his kid to do the heavy work of lead game designer/ resident old guy.

In the hindsight, the change from 2d to 3d was a train wreck that was jammed to us. I for one didn't want it, but at that point I had several other games from GW to keep me occupied that I really didn't think much of the forewarned implications from some more seasoned and established players. ( I was warned at the time, and it honestly didn't dawn on me that it was going south in inches and yards, and the negative was coming gradually in terms of quality to the game itself.)

Even in the arena of the codexs at the time, they all were- Dry and impersonal as army books and reads. If anything has stayed the same, it is that the books took too long to come out, and they were only used as stopgaps between editions.

It feels exactly the same as it does now, but the cut is too deep at this point. People are honestly losing faith in Kirby and son's corporation gakfest.
Even if he were to leave, the damage is already done, and the market already has moved on.

Again this assumption that there is a consensus that 7th is broken and unplayable [often from people who, by their own admission, haven't played it]. I've got a game tomorrow, and it took 30 seconds to organise. "1850 points, Battle Forged, Maelstrom missions?" "Okay". Simple as that. Unbound isn't for everyone, which is why it's optional. PUGs aren't dead unless you insist on imposing your house rules [e.g. no Lords of War, no Malefic powers, only a certain amount of detatchments etc. etc.]. House rules are a bad idea for PUGs, and always have been.

The BAO, which just finished, used 7th, and allowed Lords of War [albeit a restricted choice] based upon a poll that suggested this is what the attendees wanted. LoW armies were few and did poorly, evidence that they haven't broken the game. Yeah they imposed restrictions so it's not a true reflection of 7th, but restrictions are always imposed by tournaments.

If 40k isn't going in the direction that you would like, fair enough, but to suggest these financials are down to an unplayable ruleset is misleading. An unpopular ruleset [for whatever reason], or a ruleset that came in too soon after the previous, maybe [although, personally, I think it's the best one yet].

 Baragash wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
... but any forum posts by Mr Mystery are bound to be.....irrelevant.

That kinda goes without saying, but I am interested to know how he might try and defend this. I mean, how does one spin a report like this and make it sound good (outside of Kirky double-speak and playing the victim).

TBH after he diverted the conversation into something about add-on sales and TVs with the "customer is not always right" I lost interest. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a customer (or a small number of customers) as an individual (who could well be talking complete gak) and the aggregate customer (that is, the total demand/potential demand for your products - and who is always right) probably isn't going to justify the time you give up to read it.

EDIT: someone actually explained it on p9 of that topic.

Believe Mr Mystery used to post on here at one time, think he is (or was) a GW manager?

I think you generally have to have a disconnect from reality to last in that kind of job for more than 6 months these days, and most go after their BS meter has filled and they have put a few month's wages straight into the till. It was bad enough years ago, can't see it being any better now.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


The BAO, which just finished, used 7th, and allowed Lords of War [albeit a restricted choice] based upon a poll that suggested this is what the attendees wanted. LoW armies were few and did poorly, evidence that they haven't broken the game. Yeah they imposed restrictions so it's not a true reflection of 7th, but restrictions are always imposed by tournaments.

So, in essence, what you're saying is they removed the units that break the game, and what was left didn't break the game?

Who'da thunk it?

That's pretty much what I wanted GW to do in the first place, except modifying rather than excluding the most OP units, but they couldn't be arsed.

Unless I missed something in the rules, Unbound is NOT optional ("Both players need not use the same option" is the wording in my copy of the rules) other than the standard that you can refuse to play anyone for any reason.

Anyways, the rules are only one of the issues, pricing being the (much larger) other. Many of us could deal with the convoluted rules if it didn't come with a several hundred dollar price tag as well. The rules could be written better, but I wouldn't say they are "unplayable" as long as you aren't playing TFG who would abuse them.

Still, there's been a significant decrease of sales. There has to be a reason for that. Pricing is likely the biggest one, but I'm sure the depth of the rules and umpteen supplements and dataslates aren't helping.

 Pacific wrote:


Believe Mr Mystery used to post on here at one time, think he is (or was) a GW manager?

Yep, at least to being a poster here.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/user/profile/32644.page

Not been seem in some while, at least not to post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Unless I missed something in the rules, Unbound is NOT optional ("Both players need not use the same option" is the wording in my copy of the rules) other than the standard that you can refuse to play anyone for any reason.

Anyways, the rules are only one of the issues, pricing being the (much larger) other. Many of us could deal with the convoluted rules if it didn't come with a several hundred dollar price tag as well. The rules could be written better, but I wouldn't say they are "unplayable" as long as you aren't playing TFG who would abuse them.

Still, there's been a significant decrease of sales. There has to be a reason for that. Pricing is likely the biggest one, but I'm sure the depth of the rules and umpteen supplements and dataslates aren't helping.

While I think we're normally singing from the same sheet Wayne, I think value is the issue, not price. Which I'll concede is partially a semantic argument, but I have no problem paying £30 for a box of minis, it's when there's only 5 minis in that box, or I need two or three boxes to make the unit viable in game that I have an issue.

I think entry price into the hobby is to high. Rulebooks & codexes are simply to high. I know quite a few people who have all the books since they switched to hardbacks but that haven't bought a book since 1-2 hardbacks in. Where as all of those people were buying all books in 3rd-5th. The release schedule didn't help but the cost is what killed that particular purchase.

That said locally 7th has revitalized 40k and store owners are saying they're sales have gone up dramatically since the drop and we're seeing far more attendees at events and discussion in our facebook group.

Hopefully GW can right the ship or it's not as bad as predicted. It would suck to have to learn to play Warmachine