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.

Toofast wrote:
I doubt PP saw the same decrease in sales volume as GW just based on the anecdotal evidence that the people leaving GW are mostly going to PP. I haven't seen a mass exodus of players from PP like I have seen from GW. It's not like people are just stopping their war gaming hobbies. They're just stopping their GW hobby and moving to another company. I would say 90% of the WMH players I've talked to are either former GW customers or were recruited by a former GW customer. PP is most likely increasing in revenue and profit just based on all the GW converts they get.

Count me as another one who shifted from GW to PP

Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?

sauhwq wrote:
Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?

Well that's kind of the whole issue here. The rules say you can take six Riptides (back in the days of this article it was a General on Emperor Dragon with Helm of Many Eyes, Hydra Blade, Potion of Strength, Heart of Woe etc.), but that makes you a jerk because six Riptides are too good, and yet the rules don't restrict it but have this social contract that is somehow broken because you aren't playing true to the "spirit" of the game which the rules conveniently don't mention or indicate is even a thing.

That's the crux of the problem. It's an unspoken rule, but since the rules don't disallow these broken combos or OP units, it becomes an issue with the person bringing it and the person who refuses to play what is technically a legal army despite being OP. If I were to show up to a game with a list of nothing but Riptides, and you refuse to play me, it makes *YOU* the jerk for refusing to play a "legal" list and not me who took the list in the first place, because the rules allow me to take it and put the problem on us as players rather than the rules to sort out.

Wonderwolf wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.

Fair enough. My fault. Shares rose by 100%. Full year revenues rose from 110 Millions GBP in 2008 to 135 Millions GBP in 2013 in constant currency. So 22% growth. (with both financial years ending in May the year after.. no numbers for the full year or 2014 yet).

A few things:

GW's financial year ends on June 1st, so there will be no numbers for the full year of 2014. There's 2013-2014, which are out, and 2014-2015 which will be out next summer. And then there's the half-year report which will be out in mid to late January.

Revenue in the 2007-2008 financial year was £110.3m.

Revenue in the 2013-2014 financial year was £123.5m.

Growth, right? Well, yeah. But you're doing the constant currency calculations the wrong way around. In those years, the UK has had a net inflation, not deflation, so 123.5m are comparatively worth less in 2014 than in 2008.

But still growth, right?

Sure. If you only want to look at the difference between now and five years ago. How about four years ago? Let's get the first year of 5th edition in there.

Revenue in the 2008-2009 financial year was £125.7m.

On its own that's higher than today. According to the Bank of England's neat inflation calculator that's equal to £147m at the end of 2013 (2014 numbers are not yet available).

How about the 2007-2008 numbers then? I.e., your cherry-picked example: corrected for inflation, that equals £128.4m.

That'd be a net decrease in revenue.

But hey, let's cherry-pick the other way. GW peaked in 2004. Corrected for inflation they then had a revenue exceeding £200m.

38% decrease in net revenue over ten years. Good times.



And as for the shareholders, since some people were talking about shareholder activism and gnashing of teeth. Heh. The largest shareholders, except for Kirby himself (with about 6.7% of the shares), are all hedgefunds. What that means is that once the share value drops below, or goes above, a predetermined (by them) value, they'll sell. Overworked and underpaid interns update the buy/sell values based on dividend payouts, and maybe future outlook if the guy in charge of interns decided they should work some overtime and learn something new. Beyond that they literally could not care less about GW, Kirby, or how many editions of 40k are put out every year.

 Thud wrote:


How about the 2007-2008 numbers then? I.e., your cherry-picked example: corrected for inflation, that equals £128.4m.

That'd be a net decrease in revenue.

But hey, let's cherry-pick the other way. GW peaked in 2004. Corrected for inflation they then had a revenue exceeding £200m.

38% decrease in net revenue over ten years. Good times.

I didn't cherry pick. I picked the numbers that corresponded to the ICV2 report that was quoted, which covered a 5 year span (up to 2013, not yet reporting 2014, thus presumably starting 2008) and was likewise not adjusted for inflation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thud wrote:
[

And as for the shareholders, since some people were talking about shareholder activism and gnashing of teeth. Heh. The largest shareholders, except for Kirby himself (with about 6.7% of the shares), are all hedgefunds. What that means is that once the share value drops below, or goes above, a predetermined (by them) value, they'll sell. Overworked and underpaid interns update the buy/sell values based on dividend payouts, and maybe future outlook if the guy in charge of interns decided they should work some overtime and learn something new. Beyond that they literally could not care less about GW, Kirby, or how many editions of 40k are put out every year.

Yes. And as I've pointed out, stocks dropped mostly because GW decided to not pay dividends recently, rather than any moderate decline in sales. No dividends is often an auto-sell for certain funds, often even legally, as they are in turn legally bound to pay dividends to those that hold/invest in their fund.

Wonderwolf, I have just caught up on your recent posts re: GW performance, and frankly I haven't got time nor inclination to tackle all the holes in the points you're making.

Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.

Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.

When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.

When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!

My mantra was always "if I having a bad month, it doesn't matter as long as my competitor is having a bad month, if I'm having a bad month and everyone else is busy, I've got a problem."

GW has a problem.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.

Fair enough, if there is more to it than "big numbers = better", we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.

Fair enough. People brought up the 5-year report from ICV2, so that was the context we talked in. If those 5 years aren't a good measure to work in, we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.

Nobody is denying that. But the proof that GW's poor performance is running against the trend of other miniatures games companies (not CCGs, board games, etc..) cannot be found in ICV2s report. GW's performance might be symptomatic for mass battle miniature wargames as a whole, notwithstanding the success of MTG, etc..

 Azreal13 wrote:

When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!

Well, the information is not as obvious to me. My Little Pony CCGs is bigger than 40K now. Great. How people deduce growth for Privateer Press from this information is beyond me. And large-scale wargames seem to be doing exceptionally poorly in Kickstarter, both absolutely and relatively to the more hybrid-/board-game style games (e.g. Gates of Antares vs. Zombicide), which would actually imply that mass battle wargaming as a whole is in decline (in favour of board-gamey smaller-format games).

 Azreal13 wrote:

GW has a problem.

Yes. But what is the problem

Is their problem that they make a bad mass battle game, or is the problem that they make a mass battle game?

Their main problem is that they make a poorly written skirmish game rules, force it into a mass battle game and sell their miniatures at "skirmish game prices". This gives GW games a huuugge start up cost especially in comparison to other games. For not much more than just the cost of a rule book and a codex you can get a full army and the rulebook for bolt action. What would appeal to a prospective wargamer more?

Though I have no evidence of such I would hazard to guess that GW's new recruit rates are way down. That's not good for them.

Both PP and CB have reported explosive growth in their recent past, PP was to try and explain their product shortage a couple of years ago and there is even an image from a CB presentation where they have a graph showing a 75% yearly growth (this coupled with their recent statements that they have had to triple the numbers for their newest edition based on number of pre-orders alone).

And don't even get me started with X-Wing that seems to be perpetually sold out everywhere!

So the problem doesn't seem to be endemic to all tabletop miniature games, it seems that only GW is not growing.

PhantomViper wrote:
So the problem doesn't seem to be endemic to all tabletop miniature games, it seems that only GW is not growing.

What adds to the difficulty is GW is publically traded so we can see all their relevant stats while the other comparable companies are privately owned and are under no obligation to reveal any (verifiable) revenue information.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.

Fair enough, if there is more to it than "big numbers = better", we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.

I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.

Fair enough. People brought up the 5-year report from ICV2, so that was the context we talked in. If those 5 years aren't a good measure to work in, we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.

I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.

Nobody is denying that. But the proof that GW's poor performance is running against the trend of other miniatures games companies (not CCGs, board games, etc..) cannot be found in ICV2s report. GW's performance might be symptomatic for mass battle miniature wargames as a whole, notwithstanding the success of MTG, etc..

I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!

Well, the information is not as obvious to me. My Little Pony CCGs is bigger than 40K now. Great. How people deduce growth for Privateer Press from this information is beyond me. And large-scale wargames seem to be doing exceptionally poorly in Kickstarter, both absolutely and relatively to the more hybrid-/board-game style games (e.g. Gates of Antares vs. Zombicide), which would actually imply that mass battle wargaming as a whole is in decline (in favour of board-gamey smaller-format games).

PP is a tricky one, the best evidence I've seen has been from former employees, and that has been suggesting they're holding steady, but there's an artificial bottleneck in terms of their production/supply, so their actual sales and potential sales could be significantly different. Corvus Belli have reported exponential growth YOY for the last 3 or so years, but have only offered percentages, rather than numbers, but given the number of people who appear to play, must be reasonably respectable (ie millions of tens of millions rather than thousands or tens of thousands.) The only large scale wargame I'm aware of on Kickstarter is KoW, and to say that has done "exceptionally poorly" would be entirely inaccurate, their projects have done very, very well. But then, "large scale" is rather subjective and we may have different ideas about what constitutes one. But then, you have Bolt Action, FoW, DZC all doing well, at least superficially, even X Wing has begun to migrate into a bigger scale battle format, although that's a bit soon to call if it'll be anything but a curiosity.

 Azreal13 wrote:

GW has a problem.

Yes. But what is the problem

Is their problem that they make a bad mass battle game, or is the problem that they make a mass battle game?

Given the volume of people who seem poised to commit back to 40K if there's a turnaround in their opinion of the ruleset, almost definitely the former. The success of 40K historically is almost certainly due to the fact that for the longest time they were almost literally the only game in town, GW have failed to adapt to the emergence of credible competition, in fact they could be accused of creating it due to the fact that several key former GW employees are now important figures in key competitors (the likes of Alessio, Ronnie Renton, Rick Priestly, even Mike McVey has had a bash) and anecdotal evidence (strong anecdotal evidence) suggests a lot of these people felt compelled to move on because GW's culture was stifling and frustrating them.

GW have a beloved IP, a catalogue of, in the main, awesome miniatures and a massive existing and potential customer base. Any problems they're enduring right now are of their own making.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Their main problem is that they make a poorly written skirmish game rules, force it into a mass battle game and sell their miniatures at "skirmish game prices". This gives GW games a huuugge start up cost especially in comparison to other games. For not much more than just the cost of a rule book and a codex you can get a full army and the rulebook for bolt action. What would appeal to a prospective wargamer more?

Though I have no evidence of such I would hazard to guess that GW's new recruit rates are way down. That's not good for them.

Exactly this. The problem isn't one single thing, it's a combination of:

1) Rules that are poorly written and unbalanced
2) High priced figures that you also need a lot of
3) Refusal to acknowledge/embrace the internet
4) Outright hostility towards others

The Rules are a problem because they aren't clear or concise, are built around what was a slightly-larger skirmish type of game (more like a company-level game) and in general excuse poor writing with this notion that there is a "spirit" of play that everyone should magically know and abide by despite not being forced to do so by the rules, and furthermore shifting blame to the individual player(s) when there's a dispute over what constitutes the spirit of the game instead of manning up and either restricting things to keep balance, or allowing optional ways to remove the balance for the scenario games that they so often bring up as a reason for flexibility. Even if it was just a note in each Codex stating that these restrictions are meant for regular games in a club or store, and you should modify or even remove them completely if you want to play a particular scenario if your opponent agrees. That's all it would take. The players that are interested in narrative/scenario/campaign games can do just that (and frequently did), while the powergamers are kept in check by default.

The price is bad not necessarily because of the price itself, but the combination of price and volume. If you look at virtually every other game, either they are relatively cheap for a good number of troops to offset the amount you need to buy (e.g. Perry, Victrix) or they are on the expensive side but you only need a handful (e.g. Corvus Belli with Infinity, possibly Wyrd with Malifaux). Even Privateer Press, which is often used as a direct comparison to GW, requires fewer models overall so while their figures are priced about the same (give or take depending on the particular figure) it works out to less in most cases for a full force. GW alone charges a premium price *AND* requires dozens of figures, even cutting the amount in boxes down to force you to buy multiple boxes of the same thing to make a single unit and thereby charging double or even triple (or more!) for a single unit, to say nothing of rarely if ever providing all of the options that you need and the official line being to buy another box to get extras. No other miniatures game does this as they understand that if you sell cheap but need a lot, you make up for it in volume, and if you charge a lot you require less so the customer gets more value for their money.

GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist. I remember the days of the official GW forum and while yes, there was a lot of trollish posts, there was also a lot of good discussion and IIRC even the designers would sometimes post to give their thoughts and explain their reasons. GW instead tries to dictate from on high and not listen to any criticism or complaints up to and including this illusion that they do not make a game, despite A) Charging a premium for the rules and B) Most of their customers collect their figures due to the game or began their collections because of the game.

Finally, GW has open hostilities with third-party retailers who make compatible bits (that GW used to make themselves and stopped, or never made at all) and independent retailers because they live in their own bubble and feel that their retail stores can and should be the single point of contact for their entire hobby. This includes nonsense like opening up a GW store in an area with an independent retailer to steal their business, deliberately slowing down shipments to the independent while speeding them up for the GW store, and the constant removal of items from general availability to be only via the GW online store or a GW retail store.

It's all of those things which are the problem.

@TheCustomLime, WayneTheGame --

I don't think 40k is an great skirmish game, regardless of price; it's large scale, requires lots of time and money, and it is the most expensive of any tabletop wargames.

If you have a large budget for this one game ($1000 to start, and $1000 or more each year), you want a games that are pretty long, large battles, *AND* you enjoy collecting/modelling miniatures (ie new releases), 40k is a good choice.

If you want to buy a few units, perhaps invest a couple hundred dollars and play pickup skirmishes, 40k is a horrible game.

You can look at needing lots of miniatures two different ways. Either, you can say, "This is awful. That's crazy how much money I have to spend buying and painting a stupid number of figures". Or, you can say, "I'm buying and painting lots of figures every time I go to the store anyhow. This is awesome -- I get to play them together!"

Edit: You also need a lot of space to store stuff for GW games now, since titan-size models and large vehicles are no joke to store and transport, and everyone has 'em.

Yeah, but now you are falling into the same trap GW's management seems to be in: Assuming that the world is full of rich kids willing to blow hundreds on Space Marine kits. It's not a good business strategy. In addition, there are other games where you can buy a gak ton of models for the purpose of painting/playing and cheaper to boot. Bolt Action and Hail Caesar come to mind and they are much cheaper.

WayneTheGame wrote:
GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.

Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).

WayneTheGame wrote:

Finally, GW has open hostilities with third-party retailers who make compatible bits (that GW used to make themselves and stopped, or never made at all) and independent retailers because they live in their own bubble and feel that their retail stores can and should be the single point of contact for their entire hobby. This includes nonsense like opening up a GW store in an area with an independent retailer to steal their business, deliberately slowing down shipments to the independent while speeding them up for the GW store, and the constant removal of items from general availability to be only via the GW online store or a GW retail store.

It's all of those things which are the problem.

They seem to be just fine with companies like SWM who make compatible parts that don't use any iconography or terminology that refer to the 40k universe. They go berserk on people like Chapterhouse, who openly say they make bits compatible with Eldar, CSM, etc. I don't agree with this view, but I do understand why they think this way. On the other hand, I wish that PP would make multipart plastic models, so that studios could make bits for them. Would make me so happy.

I don't think GW steals much business from an independent retailer. All independents sell product at some sort of discount (from 10% - 30%) and GW sells everything at the MSRP. The GW stores never, ever have a sale, and they don't sell any non-GW product. I mean, not even a can of pop. I have never heard one of my FLGS complain that GW sucks business away from them -- certainly not the way Apple steals business away from the likes of Best Buy.

Also, there is no slowing down shipments to independents. In my area, they get Saturday releases ship on Thursday (so they are received Friday, usually before noon). GW stores won't sell their stuff until Saturday morning. Many independent stores will sell their stuff on Friday afternoon, even though they're not supposed to, and GW doesn't seem to care. Anything you can buy at a GW store, an independent can order in, unless it's out of stock. With the exception of limited release items, which are clearly stated, more stock will always come in. Independent stores know a week before the release date what their allocation is on these items. Even constrained items like Space Hulk and Stormclaw are still available at FLGS.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.

Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).

Because EU regulations puts limits on what GW can ask for/demand/try to get away with in a trade contract with an independent retailer. North America is more hands off as far as regulations go, thus companies can put pretty much whatever they want into contracts. If GW puts a clause into a contract with a FLGS that prevents them from selling their stuff online, said FLGS just hast to take it (or refuse to sell GW products at all).

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yeah, but now you are falling into the same trap GW's management seems to be in: Assuming that the world is full of rich kids willing to blow hundreds on Space Marine kits. It's not a good business strategy. In addition, there are other games where you can buy a gak ton of models for the purpose of painting/playing and cheaper to boot. Bolt Action and Hail Caesar come to mind and they are much cheaper.

Not at all. I assume (I *KNOW*) the world is full of people who would enjoy the hobby or tabletop gaming, and can't afford to blow $1000 to start up a game, and I think it's a lousy business strategy to cater only to people who can.

However, I like to paint about 20-50 models a month, and I enjoy models of all sizes (from grots to revenant titans), I like the GW aesthetic, and I enjoy a company that releases new stuff all the time. I work very hard, take care of my family, earn more money than I'll be able to take with me when I die, and can leave behind plenty for the people I care about, so why not spend some of the excess on a hobby that I enjoy? Besides, I blow way more money on things like skiing and golf, which I spend proportionately a tiny bit of time on. Don't even get me started on big ticket items like boats; just parking for a single month at a decent location will pay for a year's worth of GW models.

To me, actually, the time I spend is the most valuable asset, so I want to maximize that enjoyment, and care about that more than the cost of the model.

I don't really consider Hail Caesar and Bolt Action models to be comparable to GW models, but I have nothing against warlord games. However, these are historical, and I have zero interest in that. I like scifi/fantasy worlds. Flames of war won't get my business, either, but because I'm just not interested.

Again, I realize that I'm probably not the norm, and trying to run a business to pick at people in my type of situation who ALSO likes wargames is probably not a winning strategy O.O. Almost all of my friends and family think I'm nuts, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.

Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).

Because EU regulations puts limits on what GW can ask for/demand/try to get away with in a trade contract with an independent retailer. North America is more hands off as far as regulations go, thus companies can put pretty much whatever they want into contracts. If GW puts a clause into a contract with a FLGS that prevents them from selling their stuff online, said FLGS just hast to take it (or refuse to sell GW products at all).

Ahhhh I see. Thank you for that; I didn't know. Learn something every day

It really is such a pity. We've seen excellent products and behaviour from a plethora of fledgling companies, people who started from nothing or next to nothing and have created great things.

The reason why I barely dabble in these games is the same for many people; their settings just don't draw me the same way 40k does, even though I can distantly appreciate their quality. I should note that this isn't because of GW, because I know a decent amount about WHFB and it interests me almost none, while I know very little about Infinity and find it quite interesting (just not enough to really get in to).

Not only is GW huge relative to these companies (especially when they first started and became successful), but they have what is to a lot of people the best setting. What is rather tragic about this is to imagine if 40k were at the same quality as these other games while being scaled to the financial backing and power of GW.

In other words, the game with the most compelling setting and the biggest company behind it should, by all rights and logic, be far superior to these other games. It is not, and that wasted potential is a sad thing indeed, especially when you consider that an element of their own company is far superior to GW main (Forge World) in this regard.

 insaniak wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I shotgun War.

Meh. What's he good for?

In the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, there is only... Blacksails?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It really is such a pity. We've seen excellent products and behaviour from a plethora of fledgling companies, people who started from nothing or next to nothing and have created great things.

The reason why I barely dabble in these games is the same for many people; their settings just don't draw me the same way 40k does, even though I can distantly appreciate their quality. I should note that this isn't because of GW, because I know a decent amount about WHFB and it interests me almost none, while I know very little about Infinity and find it quite interesting (just not enough to really get in to).

Not only is GW huge relative to these companies (especially when they first started and became successful), but they have what is to a lot of people the best setting. What is rather tragic about this is to imagine if 40k were at the same quality as these other games while being scaled to the financial backing and power of GW.

In other words, the game with the most compelling setting and the biggest company behind it should, by all rights and logic, be far superior to these other games. It is not, and that wasted potential is a sad thing indeed, especially when you consider that an element of their own company is far superior to GW main (Forge World) in this regard.

And that's why there are so many complaints. GW could be so much more. They really COULD be the leader/best/whatever instead of just pretending they are and ignoring everything else.

Imagine if GW figures were reasonably priced and they passed savings on to you, and had bundles. If they allowed third parties to freely make compatible things or even offered their own bitz again. If the designers had open communication and feedback with their customers, and if they participated in events and encouraged both competitive and narrative play with solid rules that appealed to both.

That's the sad part, they could do all that and they don't. Whether it's because they are publicly traded or because of their retail chain who knows, but I and many others lament the fact that GW hasn't done anything that would give them a real competitive advantage. If I had the choice between Privateer, Warlord, anyone else and an "alternate universe" GW that did things right, it would be no comparison and I'd have several 40k armies right now and evangelize them as a good company instead of pointing out their flaws constantly.

The biggest thing that sticks in my mind for this is their paints. Great range, great paints, hampered insanely by costing more than anyone else's and giving you the least amount of anyone else. Imagine if their paints were Army Painter-style dropper bottles at 18mL for $4, they would pretty much be the only choice for virtually everyone as they would be reasonably priced, great quality and available in most game stores; I'd never need to buy Vallejo again. Instead, what do they do? They have tiny little bottles and charge a ton for it while screaming "quality" when the real reason is to get you to buy more paint by having it run out faster. Rather than offer a good product, they'd rather cut as much production costs as possible while charging the most money and claiming that it's worth that money just to eke out a few more in profit. They are insanely short-sighted.

That example always sticks out to me because it illustrates how GW frequently does half a job well, and then ruins the other half so badly that it negates the good part. They hit 2 out of three bullet points on the paints (i.e. good range/coverage, availability) and the point they missed is enough to offset everything else and drop their paint range from good to terrible.

Oh, I'm right there with you Talys. I still buy from GW though not as much and I enjoy painting/assembling their stuff. Hell, I even have a full SM battle company with DT for everyone. I just think that the rules are utter crap and that GW does no favors in getting themselves new customers by charging an arm and a leg for their rulebooks. The prices could be tolerable if the rules didn't cost so damn much.

@Frozen Ocean

Totally agree with you. I think Warmachine has some of the most well written rules outside of X-wing. Their models and fluff? Eugh.

@Wayne the Game

In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.

For me, 40k fluff is like fast food. It's got strong flavors that over power the senses.
Fluff from other games are more like the finer restaurants where the flavors aren't so "beat you over the head." Yet when you taste them, you'll find that the flavors are far more subtle, complex and rewarding.
After living in Italy I can't go to Olive Garden because the food there now just seems fake and artificial. That's how 40k fluff is for me now. While I was in it I was like "yeah! This is the best!!" But now it's like eating Taco Bell after having home made carne Asada in Mexico.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Wayne the Game

In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.

I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely; rather than put out an amazing product, they put out a good product and cripple it in some way to get you to buy more of it faster so they get more profit short-term rather than spread out.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Wayne the Game

In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.

I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely.

I won't buy their paints, but their washes are really good.

 MWHistorian wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Wayne the Game

In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.

I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely.

I won't buy their paints, but their washes are really good.

Same, but I won't buy their paints *just* because it's like $4.25 for 12mL of paint, which is more expensive and less product than basically everyone else on the market. If they were the same price (or even a little more) than Vallejo for the same amount, I'd probably only buy GW paints.

Devlan miracle man. That gak was the only thing that made my models look remotely decent.

Put that gak on everything.

I enjoy their metallics too. Leadbelcher works so well for when you want to drybrush a metallic color.

Wow, this thread has gone so far off topic.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Oh, I'm right there with you Talys. I still buy from GW though not as much and I enjoy painting/assembling their stuff. Hell, I even have a full SM battle company with DT for everyone. I just think that the rules are utter crap and that GW does no favors in getting themselves new customers by charging an arm and a leg for their rulebooks. The prices could be tolerable if the rules didn't cost so damn much.

Frankly, if I ran Games Workshop, I would give away digital copies of the BRB and the back (list portion) of the codices; then sell the fluff books. In my opinion, they'd make money, anyhow. Here is why:

- Most people, if they are introduced by friends, or in some gaming group, or buy a starter box, can get a free softcover mini rulebook.
- If someone likes 40k but doesn't want to pay $50, they'll just photocopy the back of the book. Which is legal in Canada.
- People with extra money to spend will buy fluff books, and buy the hardcovers anyhow, just to have them -- the same way the $200 limited edition codices sell out.
- You'd rather have players spending money on models than books. The models hook you into the universe more so than omplicated rules.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I enjoy their metallics too. Leadbelcher works so well for when you want to drybrush a metallic color.

Wow, this thread has gone so far off topic.

To bring it back on topic then, the biggest issue I have is that the spirit of the game is an abstract concept that needs grounding to be a reality. I'm all for picking armies that fall within the background of the faction (probably the reason why when I did play 40k I often lost) but my problem is that while you can stretch the background to accommodate virtually any army you can think of, and therefore freedom is good (for instance, the article in question mentions an Undead army with only horsemen and chariots as being bad, but IMHO that's a perfectly viable themed army) it has to be limited somewhat. People are always going to find what works "best" so the goal should be that "best" is within a few points of each other, not leaps and bounds.

That's where GW utterly fails at both execution and spirit of the game. The spirit of the game shouldn't be that you should only take 1 Riptide and you're a bad person if you take three (even though you aren't prevented from taking three if you choose), it should be that the Riptide is balanced enough so you aren't overwhelmingly powerful if your theme/scenario/whatever has three, because you're giving up something else to field three.

Other games do this. Other than picking things which have zero synergy with anything else, it's very hard to make a "bad" army as everything is within a few points of each other on the power scale. That's what 40k should strive to achieve.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I enjoy their metallics too. Leadbelcher works so well for when you want to drybrush a metallic color.

Wow, this thread has gone so far off topic.

You think? It's got a new topic every day, that has nothing to do with the original topic. lol.

Casual vs Competitive is an artificial distinction that is created by GW's lack of focus of the game. If 40k is to halt its decline, it needs to refocus. Choose a size of game and work the rules to fit that. This "everything and the kitchen sink" idea is too open to abuse and makes the game convoluted and bloated. You can keep the size, but the rules have to match.
(And please, for the love of Talos, re-do the flyer rules. Those are the most unfun rules I've ever played in a tabletop game.)