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.

There wasn't a dominant SF game before 40K. The nearest anyone came to domination in a particular genre probably was Wargames Research Group with their Ancients rules series. However they only wanted to produce rules and lists for balanced, competition historicals. Anyway, the example of Flames of War shows that it is impossible to dominate a historical period.

I don't know quite why 40K became so dominant. I think it is largely because GW were able to boost the game widely through the retail chain they had built up to sell lots of their stuff too, that attracted a lot of various customers through the doors. Once the 40K bandwagon got rolling, the network effect must have helped.

The other thing is that 40K didn't use to be such an expensive game compared to other games on the market. I mean, the early 40K models like most Citadel models were a bit more expensive than historical models, but nowadays the 40K models are a lot more expensive, not to mention the rules.

Wow, this thread has moved along.

Bring your own armies:

Yes, I would agree that the more "common" expectation for 40k in particular is to bring your own (due to it's expense I would suspect).
Since the game can get quite large, the logistics of dragging around two armies is also prohibitive.

Funny though, I take both factions with me when playing X-wing so I can start a new player or get someone going who did not have their army.
X-wing may be an unfair comparison since little preparation is involved but the expense I find not an issue to have two armies.

I find that the newer, less accepted games people tend to bring two armies to possibly get others to play.
I recently got my Robotech RPG Tactics game and am making both factions for that very reason.
We also have an annual event called "HotLead" that many people bring multiple armies for the very purpose of hosting a game people sign up to play.

Multiple large armies fully painted as "uncommon".

Executive Summary:
There are many reasons for having multiple armies and anyone who has emotional investment in tabletop gaming it only makes sense to have two opposing armies ready to go.
- To not miss a game by providing an army to play.
- To be able to teach someone a game in the hopes they choose to play regularly.
- To be able to set-up a nice looking diorama of some event with the two armies.
- To be able to "host" an event as an open table.
- Able to have a different army to play for variety (plus differing builds).

My ramble/evidence in coming up with the above points:
Some dangers for GW in the years ahead:

As 40k player base shrinks, due to the large size of the game and the expectation of bring your own army: this alone could accelerate the game's demise.
If most other systems make it easy to bring two armies of either side (small volume & size of models & inexpensive) they would be more likely to be showcased while 40k would not.

I like to point to human nature, yes finding "facts" out there on market evidence is great but I look to my "common" spending habits and my friends to see if some gaming company are doing the right things.
I think the last model I bought for 40k was a box of Centurions and find no efficient / logical reason to field them according to the game rules so they are either shelved or played for giggles.
I guess I am the targeted customer as a "collector" but I consider myself as a casual one: I am typically in it for the rules unless I see a model I am inspired to put together or modify.

Unless GW really commits themselves to designing really good looking "collectable" models, they are only fooling themselves, they are no longer fooling those who want a good game to play.

Peregrine wrote:But I don't see why this is something worth talking about.

Wargaming is a social hobby and the ability to introduce new people to it can really drive both the growth of local communities as well as sales of a given game. AllSeeingSkink expressed his frustrations at not being able to find opponents for other games he is interested in and I pointed out that the approach people are taking of trying to get other people to replace their game of choice with his might be an uphill battle. Furthermore, it speaks to GW's need for word of mouth advertising. GW used to be able to rely on a core group of enthusiasts to introduce others to the hobby. Any company in this market would benefit by having a group of enthusiastic customers who can demonstrate the game to those who don't play it (or any miniature game).

There aren't enough people like that with large enough budgets (both time and money) to accommodate a 40k-scale game that such a game is a viable product without the "bring your own army" model. Which goes back to my original point, that if the industry moves away from "bring your own army" the result will be less diversity as larger-scale games fail.

You still think it's "either or." That one approach is mutually exclusive of another. You don't need everyone to go two army project mode to reap major benefits of having what are effectively volunteer salespeople, just enough.

Then replace Hasbro/WOTC with a company of your choice, the end result is the same: GW's IP in the hands of a company that can make good use of it.

So a mystical fairy will swoop in and save them? I'm wondering what company you think is both interested and large enough to make this happen.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:What I've simply been trying to say is that having a top dog like GW can be good for the wargaming community because it reduces fragmentation and gives you a system where you can collect an army and reliably go play a game against someone.

I don't disagree. I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).

Diversity only works when you have a huge community of wargamers so that you can always find someone to play against regardless of which game you play (which might be the case in some places, it's not my experience in any place I've lived) or when (as you pointed out) you have people willing to collect an entire game and not just 1 force in a game and then other people who are willing to play that game with them, which I feel is impractical for a lot of people with a lot of wargames.

Earlier SeanO'Brian cited some GAMA surveys that the average person spends about $450 a year on miniature wargaming. So whatever the option is, you just need the "movers and shakers" of the local community to spend enough more than average to make two playable armies. That's really not that big of a stretch as long as you don't price your product at a premium like GW is now. If GW wanted to, they could out price Perry or Victrix on a per figure basis. They own their plastic production infrastructure outright with no debt.

So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.

I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.

Peregrine wrote:The point is that I don't have the realistic ability to build a second 1500-2000 point army so that I can supply both halves of the game. And I certainly don't have the ability to build multiple 1500-2000 point armies so that I can supply both halves of the game and keep things interesting instead of just playing the same two armies over and over again.

*You* don't have to. Only a sufficient number of enthusiasts do. GW needs word of mouth advertising to work for them again. Right now the price x number of models make it a bad candidate for a more social event project oriented approach. However, back in 2004 (adjusted for inflation) that wasn't the case. GW isn't that same GW anymore, but that doesn't mean someone else can't figure this out and do great things as far as sales are concerned.

It is obvious to me GW doesn't care about gamers anymore. The last example for this is the change in 40k model bases (we talk a lot about Space Marines but those for Tyranids are speaking even more) - this has nothing to do with having a better game, just about aestheticism.

The same is happening with Warhammer Battle, where the last books are more about fluff than rules and all the models are "big awesome monsters/units". It's all about the awesomeness, not about the balance of the game.

Not like it ever existed once in all of their games, anyway.

I like the picture of "you're no longer a key customer for us, you're fired". That's exactly what I understood since their "new politic". That's why I find it funny tournament players in a "highly competitive" point of view still try to hold on 40k or Battle game systems - while it is very obvious GW products no longer are suited for that (I would say they never were, but that's just my point of view here). It's like watching a kid trying to stop sea waves with their hands.

Yes. The critical point though is whether GW's new strategy of pissing off most of their existing customers and milking a small number of fanatic collectors and new recruits can be a successful one.

A few months ago I thought it might be possible, but the starting point of this thread is the early profits warning issued by GW that clearly is intended to blunt the impact of what presumably is going to be a poor set of mid-year results next month.

So perhaps this strategy is a false one.

Be it good or bad, it's already done.

I think, though, the biggest damage come from their recent "quacks" in the management of their stocks and their communication. Having some of their products suddenly disappearing or new ones not even lasting 10 minutes on their web store while in pre-command is hurting their reputation as a capable commercial society. They show you can't even trust them for something as basic as that. Hell, they even brought back Space Hulk, that was said to be a limited edition, so even the collector customer doesn't have any reason to believe GW when they will talk about "limited editions".

They really need to change that "weekly" release stance. And sending back to the White Dwarf for "more information about whether a product will come back or not"? Please, get rid of that gak.

Besides, they should definitely change their name. They're no longer a "Games Workshop". Call it "Hobby Workshop" or even "Warhammer Collector" or something. But no "Games". Not anymore.

As a shareholder, the various "informal (weird)" "communications (rants)" from Kirby alone would worry me.
The "things did not go as planned but I am sure if we stay the course all will be well" was just silliness.

Also the hinted at "If our customers were not so clueless they would realize how awesome we are and they should buy everything we have!!!" (anyone else get this "feeling" from Kirby?) has been funny, if taken seriously it would be insulting.

Anyway, I hope that one day they will figure out that confusing the company's needs with customer needs does not lead to sales.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).

Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.

Even smaller skirmish games I don't find it terribly appealing to collect 2 forces because when it comes to those games I like to stretch my legs and try and paint the models well rather than collecting multiple forces and painting them mediocre.

I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.

It just depends on the community. Me and my mates are all at or approaching 30, almost none of them play wargames at all any more. I've had the "aha" moment where I realised collecting armies for games that other people aren't playing is a good way to waste time and money Even the games I've collected 2 armies rarely get played, largely because it becomes 1 dimensional when no one else collects and you're just playing the same static force against another static force and largely because (at least my mates) are happy enough to learn a new game but won't want to keep playing it unless they are actively collecting it themselves.

Funnily enough, you talk about gamers maturing and having more home gaming and established relationships... that describes my gaming group when we were kids more than it does now as an adult I started gaming when I was about 9 and from around 9 to 15 I played a lot of home games (a lot at stores too, but more at homes). At school I hung round with other kids who played wargames and we used to go round to each others houses after school and play games for hours on end. We had the free time, we all knew each other well from school so we'd see each other every day, the hardest thing was for a few members of the group we'd have to organise parents to get lifts to each other's houses. We just set up tables where ever and mostly used random items for terrain. I was the only one who collected Epic, a couple of us collected WHFB and a couple collected 40k, for the most part we couldn't afford to do multiple armies so we shared a lot.

Fast forward to adult life, I rarely ever see my gaming mates, I have a lot of friends from work and what not that I see as well, often when I meet up with gaming mates I have non-gaming mates around too so we end up doing other things, we all have less time to play games. The toughest thing is finding time to play and finding time to paint the stuff so we can play. organising more than a couple of hours together can be tough, for the most part we all own what we need to play the games we play and tend not to share and tend not to play games that not everyone collects an army to play. Even setting up a table is more difficult now because we aren't satisfied with random kitchen condiments for terrain but most of us don't have the time or space for proper terrain or tables, a couple of my gaming mates actually moved out of the large suburban homes of their parents and in to smaller apartments and so gaming at their place now is impossible. Being able to organise a game at an FLGS is more useful to me now than it was as a kid, lol.

I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).

Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.

Even smaller skirmish games I don't find it terribly appealing to collect 2 forces because when it comes to those games I like to stretch my legs and try and paint the models well rather than collecting multiple forces and painting them mediocre.

I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.

It just depends on the community. Me and my mates are all at or approaching 30, almost none of them play wargames at all any more. I've had the "aha" moment where I realised collecting armies for games that other people aren't playing is a good way to waste time and money Even the games I've collected 2 armies rarely get played, largely because it becomes 1 dimensional when no one else collects and you're just playing the same static force against another static force and largely because (at least my mates) are happy enough to learn a new game but won't want to keep playing it unless they are actively collecting it themselves.

Funnily enough, you talk about gamers maturing and having more home gaming and established relationships... that describes my gaming group when we were kids more than it does now as an adult I started gaming when I was about 9 and from around 9 to 15 I played a lot of home games (a lot at stores too, but more at homes). At school I hung round with other kids who played wargames and we used to go round to each others houses after school and play games for hours on end. We had the free time, we all knew each other well from school so we'd see each other every day, the hardest thing was for a few members of the group we'd have to organise parents to get lifts to each other's houses. We just set up tables where ever and mostly used random items for terrain. I was the only one who collected Epic, a couple of us collected WHFB and a couple collected 40k, for the most part we couldn't afford to do multiple armies so we shared a lot.

Fast forward to adult life, I rarely ever see my gaming mates, I have a lot of friends from work and what not that I see as well, often when I meet up with gaming mates I have non-gaming mates around too so we end up doing other things, we all have less time to play games. The toughest thing is finding time to play and finding time to paint the stuff so we can play. organising more than a couple of hours together can be tough, for the most part we all own what we need to play the games we play and tend not to share and tend not to play games that not everyone collects an army to play. Even setting up a table is more difficult now because we aren't satisfied with random kitchen condiments for terrain but most of us don't have the time or space for proper terrain or tables, a couple of my gaming mates actually moved out of the large suburban homes of their parents and in to smaller apartments and so gaming at their place now is impossible. Being able to organise a game at an FLGS is more useful to me now than it was as a kid, lol.

I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse

Hah! I went through a bit of that in my early 30's -- towards my late 30's was my "hobby revival" after a haiatus. Early 40's, I just have a lot more time and disposable income. Also, I happen to enjoy being at home (I'm not big on travel), so hobby is a great way to spend my spare time. Makes me happy The amount of time I spend gaming is a bit cyclical, I think. There are on and off periods. But, my time on models is more regular.

And to go back to comparisons with other entertainment, really, a $60 kit takes me longer to go through than a $60 video game, excluding that you get the finished model after, or that you can play a game with it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Be it good or bad, it's already done.

I think, though, the biggest damage come from their recent "quacks" in the management of their stocks and their communication. Having some of their products suddenly disappearing or new ones not even lasting 10 minutes on their web store while in pre-command is hurting their reputation as a capable commercial society. They show you can't even trust them for something as basic as that. Hell, they even brought back Space Hulk, that was said to be a limited edition, so even the collector customer doesn't have any reason to believe GW when they will talk about "limited editions".

They really need to change that "weekly" release stance. And sending back to the White Dwarf for "more information about whether a product will come back or not"? Please, get rid of that gak.

Besides, they should definitely change their name. They're no longer a "Games Workshop". Call it "Hobby Workshop" or even "Warhammer Collector" or something. But no "Games". Not anymore.

Well, Games Workshop is just a name. GW is a good a name as any. Did you know that TSR stood for Tactical Studies Rules? In what universe was D&D or any product that TSR ever made about tactical studies rules? And IBM only makes a fraction of its profits off of business machines.

I don't really get your gripe about Space Hulk. After 3rd edition sold out, they didn't make more for years, and people b*tched that they couldn't buy it except at ridiculous prices on eBay. So they eventually do another run, it sells out, and now they're making more. In 4th, they said that there would be highly constrained stock; they never said they wouldn't make more boxes. If you went out and bought a dozen boxes hoping to resell them on ebay for a ridiculous amount of money, well, sucks to be you

I am not opposed fundamentally to a weekly White Dwarf, but I am opposed to it just being a new product guide. In December, the two issues of WD with the tactical objective punchouts are a good example of WD's with great value. Then again, I simply don't buy every WD. If it has nothing or very little for me, I just skip it. At the end of the year, I play catchup and get them for $1 or less each, or my hobby store just gives me all the ones I'm missing when they're ready to dump old issues.

The LE hardcovers selling out -- well, that is a little crazy, I guess they should print more? But w/e -- I never have wanted to spend $200+ on a set of books just to get an extra picture book and a foldout poster. They always come out in softcover later on for less money, so I'm not sure what the big deal is.

I will agree that their shareholder communications seems much more about the company making money than a love-fest to their customers. Which is fine, but their PR guy needs to tune the language so that it doesn't seem offensive to some customers, who want to feel loved. Personally, I don't really care if A&W as a corporation loves me, as long as they make good burgers and fries. I don't really care if Amazon or Costco makes me feel warm and fuzzy as long as they deliver stuff to my door in 2 days at good prices. I kind of expect them to optimize their prices to maximize profits, not to provide me with the best possible value. Perhaps I am just jaded

On the other hand, if it's a small local store of any type, where I get to know permanent owner/operators and regular staff, I *DO* expect them to care about me... or at least fake it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.

Anything that makes miniature wargaming more accessible is a good thing. If you happen to like what people play locally and the community isn't too fragmented, then it can work. You've seen what it's like first hand when it doesn't though. I'm not sure how a game is more accessible if you can't get games of it in. I know what I'm saying sounds counter intuitive-- especially the idea that the existing player base of other games might not be the most fruitful recruiting ground compared to those not in the hobby at all-- but it's something to try if your current approach hasn't been giving you the results you are looking for..

The whole discussion goes back to your saying

 frozenwastes wrote:
I think it's best if we don't have any top dog.

and someone who replied...

underfire wargaming wrote:
This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming. This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.

What I've simply been trying to say is that having a top dog like GW can be good for the wargaming community because it reduces fragmentation and gives you a system where you can collect an army and reliably go play a game against someone.

Diversity only works when you have a huge community of wargamers so that you can always find someone to play against regardless of which game you play (which might be the case in some places, it's not my experience in any place I've lived) or when (as you pointed out) you have people willing to collect an entire game and not just 1 force in a game and then other people who are willing to play that game with them, which I feel is impractical for a lot of people with a lot of wargames.

So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.

My point is that you will NEVER see a large community of WARGAMERS ( not GW hobbyists) as long as that one or any one company dominants the market to the level they still do. To have a healthy market you need diversity, simply put it I would never have gotten into any form of wargaming had I not discovered other games as I had no interest in GWs games settings , aesthetics , game play and prices. It was not until I went to a FLGS that I saw all these other games way back and hence forth got into wargaming. This is not an uncommon thing in any market, could you imagine if the video game market was dominated by EA? to such a level that any other form of video games had a up hill battle to gain any attention in such a market? ( I wont turn this into a video games debate but you can imagine it would be quite a bad time for video games). Board Games , Historical wargames Games and Card Games are healthy and doing well in the market place, my FLGS is quite a large gaming club with more than enough room for 20+ gaming tables, but the high majority of events are focused on card games, and many tables are full of Board games and Historical games take place as well, not to mention the thriving RPG environment which I have been apart of the majority of the last 2 years as well as the occasional historical game.

Any wargaming done their are usually in smaller groups yes their are a few warhammer events but they are quite small and are smaller every year. A group that played nothing but GW games was on its way out but with opening up to deadzone , infinity and board games has doubled in size. The DnD group does well as it has opened up too allow path finder and 5th edition into its group and now struggles to find enough space for all of their games. Their is a thriving Warmachine and Hordes group that fills up half the store every Sunday along with painting table demos in all. Local guys are producing their own games and products and they enrich the market as well as give them a job doing what they love.

Wargaming however as a whole crowd is vastly smaller than the Board gaming crowd or the Card gaming one. Wargaming has such potential to be right up their with them. It can equal video games in popularity if only their was enough diversity that genres would attract more attention. However with GWs dominance and so many companies making copies and look alikes of GWs games aesthetics the market sees a lot of wasted talent being put on making outdated heroic scale miniatures when they can produce true scale miniatures with such great creative ideas.

If GW died, the only FLGS clubs that would go out are the ones that are foolish enough to base their income on that one game, which all the FLGS in my area do not do, they have opened up to card games and board games as well as supporting other wargames and they have a much stable and higher income without dealing with the FLGS Hate that GW likes to spew out at them, as if their own GW clubs really have a place anymore in North America. Wargaming in the Sci Fi area has been for the most part stagnate with only growth in the GW part which now is declining at a rapid rate. Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!). Were are other like games? most of them start up and then die out, because so many will only play GW games until the last 5 years or so were GWs actions have finally began to be enough for gamers and we now see games like infinity taking up shelf space.

I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?. The rest would go and support other game companies or who knows maybe even start their own?. However I do like frozenwastes comment to me a page back, I do see a gradual shift being a more stable one for the market, my only fear is then we would just get another company dominating the market, but with each passing month and year my worries in this area lessen as I see more diversity coming into the market place. Now all that is left is to convince gamers that not every successful company out side of infinity needs to make their range in plastic :/!.

So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?

Aye OK pal.

 Yodhrin wrote:
So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?

Aye OK pal.

I think you may have taken what I said out of context, I was referring to those who when such a topic as what I have been talking about is mentioned, make the excuse for GW that if the company became less dominant or left entirely that it would be bad for the market because then they would not playing anymore , further adding that they would only play GWs games and that is it. In which case they are still wargamers, but not a part of the wargaming market place outside of GW so in a way they could be referred to as some have coined the term " GW hobbyists" who do not like to acknowledge of even the existence of wargaming those are who I was mentioning in the response above.

For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.

People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.

That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.

I don't think tabletop wargaming has the potential to be as large as boardgames or video games because it is basically more difficult in the important sense of requiring more commitment of resources from the people who want to be involved in it. Like a video game you just have to buy the game and stick it in your computer. A boardgame you just buy it and find some friends. The rules are going to be easier.

Nothing against that at all, I play video games and board games as well as wargames, but you have to admit there is a lot more time and effort involved in playing wargames and that restricts it to a smaller population.

That said, there is no evidence from the success of Salute, Vapnartak, Colours and so on, that the supposed dominance of GW has prevented the overall wargame scene from being increasingly healthy, varied and vibrant.

Completely right. Suggesting that Wargames can equal the reach or popularity of Boardgames, let alone Video Games is deluded.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.

That's fine. Maybe in the future it will work for you as our gaming situations definitely shift over time.

I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse

I think it's great if someone has a local community for one of GW's games and loves playing and collecting it.

GW needs more such healthy communities-- and they don't even necessarily need to be about serious game play. I know the more vibrant of the two 40k groups within an hours drive of me do hobby time at every second meeting of the gaming group. A full 50% of their time spent together is building and painting miniatures and terrain. I often join them just to paint whatever is next in my que and talk geek.

I believe GW's declining revenue doesn't have one simple cause. We may want to simply point at high prices, or something we don't like about their game, or how they handle news and preorders, their internet policy, their strict policies for the independent trade "partners", turning people off by being so litigious, and so on, but I think it's actually a combination of the things that has lead to their declining profit and shrinking dividend. Less people buying less product can't be good for any local critical mass, even if it's not about game play, but about hobbying.

.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think tabletop wargaming has the potential to be as large as boardgames or video games because it is basically more difficult in the important sense of requiring more commitment of resources from the people who want to be involved in it. Like a video game you just have to buy the game and stick it in your computer. A boardgame you just buy it and find some friends. The rules are going to be easier.

Nothing against that at all, I play video games and board games as well as wargames, but you have to admit there is a lot more time and effort involved in playing wargames and that restricts it to a smaller population.

That said, there is no evidence from the success of Salute, Vapnartak, Colours and so on, that the supposed dominance of GW has prevented the overall wargame scene from being increasingly healthy, varied and vibrant.

Azazelx wrote:Completely right. Suggesting that Wargames can equal the reach or popularity of Boardgames, let alone Video Games is deluded.

I completely agree with these sentiments. I enjoy 40k because it is a war game that demands my time, effort, and passion -- not in spite of it. As I build what is going to be my 6th army, I'm not saying, "damn, this is going to take me 600 hours to get the units done up the way I want"... I'm saying, "Sweet, 600 hours of fun, and after, I get to play and show off this army!"

On the other hand I understand that there is no WAY there are as many people who enjoy this kind of thing, or are at a point in their life where they have the time and money to enjoy it, as computer games or board games.

underfire wargaming wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?

Aye OK pal.

I think you may have taken what I said out of context...

No no, I understood the comment and the context just fine, I simply think it's somewhat hypocritical to berate one group for their personal tastes and then...

For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.

...completely fail to acknowledge that your own preferences are no different. You look at GW and see those things, as is your right. For the record many of the people who still like GW's games and background share many of those opinions. But how is that different from someone who looks at the other options in the "wargaming market" as you put it and decide they're uninterested in those?

People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.

That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.

And here we see why; you're unwilling to extend to others the same courtesy you require for yourself(that they respect your personal tastes and choices); in your eyes those who're only interested in that specific subset of wargaming are "brainwashed"

underfire wargaming wrote:

Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!).

Aesthetic is a subjective matter of taste. However, I don't see objectively, how an unbiased person could point at Reaper's fantasy models and go, "those are obviously superior to Games Workshop's!". I mean, sure, someone might prefer Reaper minis (or heck, the crappy D&D minis...) but just take a look at both websites. WHFB has a ton of gorgeous models. There is nothing in the Reaper line that remotely comes to the complexity of the sculpts for Treeman Ancient, Nagash, Morghasts, Glotkin, Blightkings, Malekith -- just to name some of the larger 2014 releases.

I own lots of reaper minis, mostly because they are cheap (especially the Bones). But you cannot seriously compare a Bones dragon with a WHFB dragon:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wood-Elf-Sisters-of-Twilight-on-Forest-Dragon
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Malekith-Witch-King-on-Black-Dragon
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/High-Elf-Prince-on-Dragon

Reaper also has a ton of older minis in the 28mm scale that are just awful in terms of anatomy and proportion. I mean, I have old Ral Partha models that were sculpted better. The other issue with Reaper is that it's just plain harder to find shops that stock it, or stock more than a couple of models.

underfire wargaming wrote:

I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?

So as not to take you out of context, this is the part that most GW fans probably take exception to. If someone plays 40k or WHFB and nothing else, and wont' consider anything else, OF COURSE they are a "part of the wargaming market". They buy/collect/play a product that the FLGS classifies as a wargame... ergo, they are a part of the wargaming market. In the same way that someone who only plays historical wargames, and will not play anything other than the American Civil war is part of the wargaming market. For that matter, someone who only plays one skirmish game (for example, Warmachines) is equally a part of the wargaming market.

I would actually argue that people who play board games only, whether or not they have miniatures, are NOT part of the wargaming market (in the same way that RPGs and TCGs are not wargames), although they are all part of the broader gaming market, often served by the same stores.

What would make 40k not a wargame is if it ceased to be sold as part of a wargame, and instead, the models were sold for hobby -- like Revell or Tamiya models. Someone who collects Revell jet fighters like F16 and SR71 are clearly hobbyists who do not wargame.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to flame you. Just pointing out why it's a bizarre comment and several people have taken exception to it, whatever the context.

 Yodhrin wrote:

underfire wargaming wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?

Aye OK pal.

I think you may have taken what I said out of context...

No no, I understood the comment and the context just fine, I simply think it's somewhat hypocritical to berate one group for their personal tastes and then...

For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.

...completely fail to acknowledge that your own preferences are no different. You look at GW and see those things, as is your right. For the record many of the people who still like GW's games and background share many of those opinions. But how is that different from someone who looks at the other options in the "wargaming market" as you put it and decide they're uninterested in those?

People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.

That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.

And here we see why; you're unwilling to extend to others the same courtesy you require for yourself(that they respect your personal tastes and choices); in your eyes those who're only interested in that specific subset of wargaming are "brainwashed"

What group did I berate? I only commented on how people think the entire wargaming market is dependant on one company keep it up? As well it is not hypocritical as what I said about myself choosing what I wanted to play and not is not the goal of what I was saying, what I was saying if people want to see this market grow into a thriving one then they should want diversity because that is what leads to a healthy market place. This topic is going off from what it is originally intended to be . I said it is fine if people just want to play GW games, I just think it is a shame they should never want to try out other games and build up from those test and demos their own personal tastes and wants when it comes to gaming and try out more than just one set of a companies game. It is fine if they do so however it is just a shame in my view is all no means for offense.

I extended the same courtesy to others, my only argument is for those who say the market should be fearful if GW goes under because then they wont buy anymore games which has been said several times in a different thread by individuals. This logic is what I am pointing too these few individuals that greatly confuses me. That they would if GW did go under never touch another game , or even if GW stays around never try anything else out because it is not a GW product? is that not a fitting definition of Brainwashed? so I do apologize for saying it as it targeted the GW customer base as a whole that was wrong and incorrect of me to say. which GW has focused with their segment of their market place? I am not saying everyone who plays GW is such , I am mainly targeting the whiteknights and presenting how GWs actions have not been good for the Hobby of wargaming because they block off their customers from the market so much that most don't even know what wargaming is.

I apologize if anyone feels I was targeting them with this statement. all I was saying is that with GW being in such a dominating position and with a large chunk of their customer base unwilling to ever try out another game left me very concerned as how is wargaming supposed to grow and become healthy when the market is in such a state? and at times other companies would do this as well which I understand its great marketing no doubt about that and any company would be foolish for not encouraging such a customer base. However when they did have their Iron grip the market suffered with no other games really coming out and staying around for long. Now we are finally seeing an end to this dark age and moving into what some have called " the golden age" of wargaming. I hope too see this continue and I do hope my apology for my poor usage of the term brainwashing above has been excepted I will refrain and only talk now about the wargaming market place as a whole.

Talys wrote:

underfire wargaming wrote:

Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!).

Aesthetic is a subjective matter of taste. However, I don't see objectively, how an unbiased person could point at Reaper's fantasy models and go, "those are obviously superior to Games Workshop's!". I mean, sure, someone might prefer Reaper minis (or heck, the crappy D&D minis...) but just take a look at both websites. WHFB has a ton of gorgeous models. There is nothing in the Reaper line that remotely comes to the complexity of the sculpts for Treeman Ancient, Nagash, Morghasts, Glotkin, Blightkings, Malekith -- just to name some of the larger 2014 releases.

I own lots of reaper minis, mostly because they are cheap (especially the Bones). But you cannot seriously compare a Bones dragon with a WHFB dragon:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wood-Elf-Sisters-of-Twilight-on-Forest-Dragon
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Malekith-Witch-King-on-Black-Dragon
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/High-Elf-Prince-on-Dragon

Reaper also has a ton of older minis in the 28mm scale that are just awful in terms of anatomy and proportion. I mean, I have old Ral Partha models that were sculpted better. The other issue with Reaper is that it's just plain harder to find shops that stock it, or stock more than a couple of models.

underfire wargaming wrote:

I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?

So as not to take you out of context, this is the part that most GW fans probably take exception to. If someone plays 40k or WHFB and nothing else, and wont' consider anything else, OF COURSE they are a "part of the wargaming market". They buy/collect/play a product that the FLGS classifies as a wargame... ergo, they are a part of the wargaming market. In the same way that someone who only plays historical wargames, and will not play anything other than the American Civil war is part of the wargaming market. For that matter, someone who only plays one skirmish game (for example, Warmachines) is equally a part of the wargaming market.

I would actually argue that people who play board games only, whether or not they have miniatures, are NOT part of the wargaming market (in the same way that RPGs and TCGs are not wargames), although they are all part of the broader gaming market, often served by the same stores.

What would make 40k not a wargame is if it ceased to be sold as part of a wargame, and instead, the models were sold for hobby -- like Revell or Tamiya models. Someone who collects Revell jet fighters like F16 and SR71 are clearly hobbyists who do not wargame.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to flame you. Just pointing out why it's a bizarre comment and several people have taken exception to it, whatever the context.

Ah I should have made my stance about my view of Reaper miniatures much better than I did. I love Reaper miniatures and in my own personal view which is my own, I view them as one of the top and over GW because of their Diversity, any fantasy based race you can think of and odds are they have a mini for it. Yes their miniatures are heroic scale ( most of them are older sculpts so this is understandable and they have aged well) but their sheer diversity I cannot think of any company that equals it, except for perhaps infinity but their miniatures are focused purely on the Infinity setting. That is why I put them a step above GW, that and their much better treatment of FLGS, their customers and all though their attempts at game systems sadly did not go to well for them. Sculpts can be great ( even though if its got the GW sticker on it you can guarantee its going to be covered in excessive amounts of skulls cause yea ?) However even of late many of their sculpts have been going down in quality.

I compare on a standard of Diversity , Reaper miniatures make their money for DnD games and no one else in the market place really reaches their level of diversity ( Otherworld miniatures are working their way up their with much better sculpts). When it comes to fantasy I would choose Reaper for the most part any day, and heck their are a few GW minis that I would look at , Forge world as well for fantasy ( even if I have too sand off the skulls ) over all though I stand strong with my choice in Reaper due to Reapers diverse line, but they produce for an open market with no exact setting of their own. Were GW has their own settings and hence limit their range to such which is fine this is all just my personal taste on what I like to see when it comes to a fantasy range.

I really hate to have to argue the 2nd part, but I would still say they technically would be apart of the GW wargaming market but really not a target of the many other Wargaming companies as they would not want any of their products so in that case I fell confident in my stance their. Their are the high majority who defiantly do buy other game products and they are a great and large part of the wargaming market place and are very important for wargamings future let me add in as well.

I never did say Board games , Card Games and RPGs ( even though for miniatures many RPGs cross over into wargaming due to such purchases, Reaper for example) are apart of the Wargaming market, they are their own separate markets I agree. What I was doing was comparing the size and health of these three thriving market places to the current health of wargaming which was not doing very well for the last 2 decades or so, and only recently has seen healthy growth in diversity of games and products offered by more and more companies. What I was comparing was potential market size and growth to a much more main stream future instead of being stuck as a niche market.

I never said GWs games were not wargames, though I will say their rules for the most part a sorry excuse for a wargame rule system that it seems people need to house rule in order to have fun playing it. I hope that can clear up with what I was saying. I want to see wargaming grow and market growth comes from diversity and more companies and I would like to see the trend continue. I will refrain from any more posts on this topic I do apologize if anyone was offended , I will ensure next time my posts are written with much more clarity and to void any terms that may offend anyone.

Wargames existed before GW. Wargames will exist after GW has gone.

Will the market be smaller? Yes, in the sense that not everyone who plays only GW will switch to other wargames. No, in the broader sense that GW's two games are only a small part of the huge diversity of rules and models that exists elsewhere.

Ironically GW have greatly reduced the diversity of their offerings over the past 10 years, dropping several categories, mass battle, skirmish, RPG, historical, naval, space and sports games from their line-up.

Did GW help to grow the wargames market? Yes. Can the market remain healthy and grow without GW? Yes. It was already growing before GW got going, and to some extent GW was lifted by the rising tide.

I am not sure if the market will be smaller if GW will be gone, X-wing is doing well as well as a few others.

Lots of other game companies do well where GW fails at, customer interaction and the use of the internet.

I keep thinking of what got me into war gaming to understand "target market".
Executive Summary: Wanting a suitably "realistic" setting to play in, with a reasonably complex rule-set to also lend "realism".
The above statement is as concise as I could make it.

If we were "collectors" you would be really someone into building "models" exclusively, many people do that as a "classic" hobby.

Strategy in a "pure" form tends to lean toward ugly looking since it is about abstraction, competitive play in a fixed rule-set.

There is something to be said for a unit of yours on the other side of a hill about to engage an enemy unit on the other side hidden in a tree-line.
Thoughts of "line of sight", "cover", "range", movement when going over a hill... all these considerations fire the mind for tactical thinking.
People who can appreciate this are the true tabletop war gaming crowd.

I feel if a company is not emphasizing an immersive rule-set played within an immersive setting, they have lost their core market.
GW has created a very immersive setting but their rules have become "goofy" and that immersion has been lost.

Now broken the £5 barrier

Well, the yearly report is out and it doesn't look any better than the half year.

EDIT: My bad, the old report got reposted.

I've been wondering if the failing Fantasy system is what is dragging them down (more than their brick and mortar stores I mean)

Granted it's not really provable outside the company, but it would explain a lot.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well, the yearly report is out and it doesn't look any better than the half year.

What did they say?

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf

EDIT: False alarm... I jumped the gun based on a misinformed thread elsewhere... this is still the half-year report.

It'll be a bit longer before the report comes out. Last year's was on January 16.

It's out on Thursday, there's an investor's calendar on the site.