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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

Indeed they have but they can say that all they want. Their "collectors" tend to prefer playing and if they scorn the game side so GAMES-Workshop it'll bite em in the ass, hard.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

If rumors regarding fantasy are true they're finally learning that a successful game can't work from that mindset.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

They are called Games Workshop. They sell their rulebooks for absurd amounts of money. The first thing they will try and sell you when you walk in the door is the starter set to play games.

The "we primarily make collectables not games" is just an excuse for poor rules and a pathetic attempt to make it seem like Chapterhouse were costing them money in that stupid court case.

Oh, you don't need to tell that to me, Skink. I'm out of the GW loop anyway.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, you don't need to tell that to me, Skink. I'm out of the GW loop anyway.

Yeah, I still care too much I haven't played a game of WHFB in ages, my armies have barely left the shelf since 7th, but I want a reason to get back in to it not a reason to throw them all in a fire

I'd like to be optimistic about the rumored changes. Some of them could be great ideas for a supplemental game that works in conjunction with WHFB. However I have doubts about GW's ability to pull it off. I've spent some time thinking about those doubts and I've come to the conclusion that GW lacks understanding about the intangible parts of the gaming hobby. More specifically I think they lack understanding about our culture because there are fewer and fewer gamers in charge over there. There are certain things that a gaming company must have in order to appeal to the gamer community. The more of these items a company checks off, the more appeal they will have.

1) A great game with solid rules that are fun to play.
2) Great fluff that gets us excited to play. We sometimes joke about the fluff bunnies but most of us have a little fluff bunny in them.
3) Great Models that are a pleasure to assemble/paint.
4) Affordability.
5) Variety.
6) A healthy, developed community.
7) Ambassadors and other support to the community including our FLGS's.
8) Willingness to listen to and interact with the community.

All those items go together to create value. Like I said above, the more of those items that a company checks off the more successful they are likely to be as a gaming company because we percieve greater value. Focus on the above principles and with competent management the bottom line will follow. At some point GW started focusing on the bottom line first and that's where things went wrong. (I do have to emphasize competent management because without that you can end up in a defiance games situation).

The more I think about it, I don't think GW can recreate the value to woo back those of us who have jumped ship because they have demonstrated a lack of ability to address #1 in recent years. We've all seen games where it drags down to a halt because you're on a critical turn and there are multiple interpretations of the same pivotal rule. It has happened more in the GW games than any other system I've played and their FAQ's are often inadequate and outdated. #2 they've got, because they've had it for decades but now their talking about trashing the old fluff. #3 They can do if you can go for their aesthetic. In all honesty 'moar skullz' and barefoot state troopers irritates me to no end, but their sculptors have talent. We have all seen their willingness to flagrantly abandon #4. #5 they can do. #6 is debatable. As a community we are developed, but we are not healthy. Many of us are embittered and resentful by past treatment. Most of us harbor hope that this time it will be better, every time. It gets tiresome. Every visit to a FLGS shows fewer and fewer games of anything GW being played and less GW product on the shelf. #7 they've just abandoned. Finally, GW has made it evident for a decade that they don't care for #8 at all. Unless they are willing to address some of the points they've failed at in the past several years I'm pretty sure this new edition won't do what it needs to do for them.

If you compare them with other gaming companies that are on the same scale the rumors have them trying to toe into you see that the other companies create significantly more value: Warmahordes, Wild West Exodus, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. Those games all charge a premium for their product (and thus steer away from #4 to a degree) but we are okay with it because they all emphasize the other 7 aspects of gaming value.

I would love to be wrong. I would love to come back to WHFB. It was fun to resist the forces of Chaos with nothing but steel, gunpowder, and courage. Put bluntly, though, games workshop products lack value and I fear they can no longer execute well enough to restore that value with the rumored changes alone. Especially if they damage #2 which is one of the few aspects they still had going for them in the WHFB world.

I agree wholeheartedly with #8. I play Fantasy for large scale battles, I have Malifaux for skirmish games & WM/H if I ever get desperate. I wish GW was more open, I mean wyrd does a pretty much open beta test of everything and it works great as it shows transparency, trust & allows for user feedback.

GW currently has me dusting off my malifaux minis. My old hunks of metal malifaux minis lol.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with #8. I play Fantasy for large scale battles, I have Malifaux for skirmish games & WM/H if I ever get desperate. I wish GW was more open, I mean wyrd does a pretty much open beta test of everything and it works great as it shows transparency, trust & allows for user feedback.

Agreed. I love the way that Malifaux approaches their release. I also like how Privateer handled the genesis of Mk2 - which was a totally open beta, EVERYONE gets to give feedback. Sure that was just for the system change into MK2, but you got to be heard and say your piece even if your thoughts weren't adopted.

I wish GW would stop with the all knowing hubris and communicate with their fanbase / customers. Then again it is a publicly traded company, so what do you expect from a souless corp who has a board to appease and shareholders to pay.

GW currently has me dusting off my malifaux minis. My old hunks of metal malifaux minis lol.

Hehe... i have a metal Leveticus crew lying around somewhere. =)

I'm as big a Fantasy fan as anyone and i dabble in 40k (more to scratch my buddies' sci-fi itch than anything, i could honestly take or leave the game). I had started dabbling in X-wing as a way to have a game to play with my son and to have something to play with my buds that doesn't take 3 hours to play ... looks like i'll be putting more time into X-wing. Hell, might even dip back into Warmachine and re-create my old Caine2 pewpewpew lists until i see how the fantasy dust settles.

My buds and i will still play 8th of course, but i honestly think that all GW is doing is going to further alienate their fantasy genre playing crowd.... And its not like they don't have genre competition if not exactly scale competition in genre.

Dorrand wrote:
I'd like to be optimistic about the rumored changes. Some of them could be great ideas for a supplemental game that works in conjunction with WHFB. However I have doubts about GW's ability to pull it off. I've spent some time thinking about those doubts and I've come to the conclusion that GW lacks understanding about the intangible parts of the gaming hobby. More specifically I think they lack understanding about our culture because there are fewer and fewer gamers in charge over there. There are certain things that a gaming company must have in order to appeal to the gamer community. The more of these items a company checks off, the more appeal they will have.

1) A great game with solid rules that are fun to play.
2) Great fluff that gets us excited to play. We sometimes joke about the fluff bunnies but most of us have a little fluff bunny in them.
3) Great Models that are a pleasure to assemble/paint.
4) Affordability.
5) Variety.
6) A healthy, developed community.
7) Ambassadors and other support to the community including our FLGS's.
8) Willingness to listen to and interact with the community.

All those items go together to create value. Like I said above, the more of those items that a company checks off the more successful they are likely to be as a gaming company because we percieve greater value. Focus on the above principles and with competent management the bottom line will follow. At some point GW started focusing on the bottom line first and that's where things went wrong. (I do have to emphasize competent management because without that you can end up in a defiance games situation).

The more I think about it, I don't think GW can recreate the value to woo back those of us who have jumped ship because they have demonstrated a lack of ability to address #1 in recent years. We've all seen games where it drags down to a halt because you're on a critical turn and there are multiple interpretations of the same pivotal rule. It has happened more in the GW games than any other system I've played and their FAQ's are often inadequate and outdated. #2 they've got, because they've had it for decades but now their talking about trashing the old fluff. #3 They can do if you can go for their aesthetic. In all honesty 'moar skullz' and barefoot state troopers irritates me to no end, but their sculptors have talent. We have all seen their willingness to flagrantly abandon #4. #5 they can do. #6 is debatable. As a community we are developed, but we are not healthy. Many of us are embittered and resentful by past treatment. Most of us harbor hope that this time it will be better, every time. It gets tiresome. Every visit to a FLGS shows fewer and fewer games of anything GW being played and less GW product on the shelf. #7 they've just abandoned. Finally, GW has made it evident for a decade that they don't care for #8 at all. Unless they are willing to address some of the points they've failed at in the past several years I'm pretty sure this new edition won't do what it needs to do for them.

If you compare them with other gaming companies that are on the same scale the rumors have them trying to toe into you see that the other companies create significantly more value: Warmahordes, Wild West Exodus, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. Those games all charge a premium for their product (and thus steer away from #4 to a degree) but we are okay with it because they all emphasize the other 7 aspects of gaming value.

I would love to be wrong. I would love to come back to WHFB. It was fun to resist the forces of Chaos with nothing but steel, gunpowder, and courage. Put bluntly, though, games workshop products lack value and I fear they can no longer execute well enough to restore that value with the rumored changes alone. Especially if they damage #2 which is one of the few aspects they still had going for them in the WHFB world.

I think your list is pretty good. In my opinion, in #8 GW has definitely fallen short, or at the very least, has given everyone in North America the impression that they don't listen. I don't know how it is in Europe.

Affordability is a curious one. 40k and WHFB are expensive *games* to play. However, as a hobby, almost every other company that fulfills #2 and #3 (from a Scifi-Fantasy perspective) is much more expensive to model, and has far inferior modelling potential. I actually think that 40k is the cheapest scifi brand to *model* a large collection of quality.

I'm probably one of GW's easiest customers. As long as they keep making models that I like, and those models don't cost more (or much more) than similar quality alternatives, I'll keep giving them money. The rules are really secondary for me -- I could play with any set of rules from Rogue Trader to 7th, and be happy, as long as I get to get together with friends, plunk down a an awesome table, and have some fun.

I'll keep giving money to PP too, as long as they keep producing nice models of the sort that I like (they have some models that I just consider ugly, and I can't bring myself to buy, muich less paint them). I just can't give PP as much money, because there is very little point in buying more than 1 or 2 of any given model, whereas, for instance, GW has given me a reason to build a couple of dozen bikes (geared/factioned differently), a dozen dreadnoughts, three boxes of centurions, etc. Infinity is the same thing. I own every single model that's come out for it (never played the game once, lol). I love the scupts -- but I'll never buy another model unless they release new stuff.

I for one am a huge fan of the 'large armies on a table' thing that fantasy offers, and if this changes or is no longer supported that could actually kill the hobby for me as i'm one of those unfortunates that relies almost entirely on pickup gaming to get my fantasy fix. I'm hoping maybe this is more of a mordheim style release to go with current style fantasy than a complete replacement (as has been previously stated, a gateway drug so to speak). As for the bubblelicious bubbleverse, it sounds horrendous, and I know these rumour guys have a fairly good rep but fingers crossed that they're wrong. (oh and round bases in fantasy can eat it! lol)

Talys,

I didn't create that list with any particular order. I just came up with what I thought were principless of value for different folks in the community. Everyone seems to have their own aspects of value that they rank higher than others. For some it's the model quality that is everything and they don't care about the games much if at all. I play with a Necromunda guy who I've never seen win a game, but he has the most beautifully converted models I've ever played against. He doesn't really care about winning. For him the game is an excuse to make more figs. Like you, he cares less about cost and game play and everything about the models themselves. I've seen him pick up a box just for one of the extra bits in the box and it's conversion potential. For him, his most important value is quality.

As for affordability, that in itself is a value as opposed to quality. From what I've seen some companies exist based on the value of affordability. EM4, Wargames Factory, Prince August and Mantic all make a point of emphasizing the value of affordability. They create value by being more affordable.

Talking about the cheapest brand to model an army of quality is just emphasizing value 3 over value 4. For someone where the reverse was true they could use the bag of 80 warzone soldiers from Prince August for less than $0.50 per model.

It just goes show that different people would order that list differently as to what's important to them.

An interesting thing though is that to my knowledge all those companies have some form of interaction with their customers. Mantic has their pathfinder program and their forums along with other interaction programs. Prince august is responsive to email. And reps from Wargames Factory prowl their forums on a regular basis and provide input along with keeping an active facebook page.

Dorrand wrote:
Talys,

I didn't create that list with any particular order. I just came up with what I thought were principless of value for different folks in the community. Everyone seems to have their own aspects of value that they rank higher than others. For some it's the model quality that is everything and they don't care about the games much if at all. I play with a Necromunda guy who I've never seen win a game, but he has the most beautifully converted models I've ever played against. He doesn't really care about winning. For him the game is an excuse to make more figs. Like you, he cares less about cost and game play and everything about the models themselves. I've seen him pick up a box just for one of the extra bits in the box and it's conversion potential. For him, his most important value is quality.

As for affordability, that in itself is a value as opposed to quality. From what I've seen some companies exist based on the value of affordability. EM4, Wargames Factory, Prince August and Mantic all make a point of emphasizing the value of affordability. They create value by being more affordable.

Talking about the cheapest brand to model an army of quality is just emphasizing value 3 over value 4. For someone where the reverse was true they could use the bag of 80 warzone soldiers from Prince August for less than $0.50 per model.

It just goes show that different people would order that list differently as to what's important to them.

An interesting thing though is that to my knowledge all those companies have some form of interaction with their customers. Mantic has their pathfinder program and their forums along with other interaction programs. Prince august is responsive to email. And reps from Wargames Factory prowl their forums on a regular basis and provide input along with keeping an active facebook page.

Out of the 4 companies that you mention, I own some Mantic stuff (Deadzone), and 1 Wargames Factory model, but Wargames Factory has very little scifi to speak of -- or that I've seen, anyhow (a small number of DreamForge models). I've never seen anything by EM4 or Prince August, so I can't say -- maybe just my FLGS doesn't carry their stuff.

I don't think the quality is quite there yet for Mantic -- their Ruined City, for example, is far inferior to 40k terrain, and their Maurauders are like a poor-man's Orks. Still, I've bought some to support the company, and I think I actually painted enough Enforcers to play a game, if I could only find someone who was interested I hope that one day they have at least a PP-sized catalogue; at the moment, it's not a very viable hobby, as each faction has only a handful of models.

I actually quite like your list; I think it's apt, and reflects priorities of customers, though as you say, the priority of each point varies from one person to the next.

GW is actually quite responsive by email (I've emailed many times, and have always received a real, thoughtful response by a human being). However, I certainly agree that I feel their games would be better if they'd solicit input from their fans in a visible, interactive way. I have no idea what happens in the UK, where it's based, but in Canada, where I am, there is no point in giving a GW store staff member input.

I wish other companies would pick up the MPP concept of GW (where there are kitting options). It would make so many other products a viable hobby aside from occasionally painting a cool looking unit.

I get what you're saying Talys, as the perspective of a collector. I look at mantic or wargames factory and see pretty good playing pieces, at a price suitable to what they are intended for. A good system should have room for both collectors and gamers, and i haven't been able to say that about games workshop for a long time now.

edit: and while games workshop touts the line that their customers are in majority collectors and not gamers, it seems to me from their results that that is not true. Thats the real shame of what's going on, if gw can't keep their gak in check then both collectors and gamers will end up losing in the long run.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

Indeed they have but they can say that all they want. Their "collectors" tend to prefer playing and if they scorn the game side so GAMES-Workshop it'll bite em in the ass, hard.

ironic that you quote that, since they are officially changing their company name to warhammer. It even says just warhammer on the front of some of their stores in england.

 Orock wrote:
ironic that you quote that, since they are officially changing their company name to warhammer. It even says just warhammer on the front of some of their stores in england.

Have they officially said that or is that just extrapolation because they changed the signs on some of their stores?

 Torga_DW wrote:
I get what you're saying Talys, as the perspective of a collector. I look at mantic or wargames factory and see pretty good playing pieces, at a price suitable to what they are intended for. A good system should have room for both collectors and gamers, and i haven't been able to say that about games workshop for a long time now.

edit: and while games workshop touts the line that their customers are in majority collectors and not gamers, it seems to me from their results that that is not true. Thats the real shame of what's going on, if gw can't keep their gak in check then both collectors and gamers will end up losing in the long run.

Well, really, I don't think it can be either/or. If 40k models weren't playable, I'd buy a lot less (if any). I certainly wouldn't buy $30 heroes unless they were really, really special -- and a lot of them aren't. On the other hand, I'm not really interested in excellent rules that don't have a model collection behind them -- because in that case, I'd rather play computer games, where game rules are not subject to interpretation, and where matchmaking is never an issue. Or wait until there are more/better models

I think that most 40k "collectors" or "hobbyists" still like the game and game setting, even if they don't play as much as people who would principally consider themselves gamers. And in any case, it's good money for them. I may only play two or three nights out of a month (certainly less than 40 nights a year), but I've still purchased every codex and rulebook, and a good number of the campaign and scenario books.

Talys wrote:
Well, really, I don't think it can be either/or. If 40k models weren't playable, I'd buy a lot less (if any). I certainly wouldn't buy $30 heroes unless they were really, really special -- and a lot of them aren't. On the other hand, I'm not really interested in excellent rules that don't have a model collection behind them -- because in that case, I'd rather play computer games, where game rules are not subject to interpretation, and where matchmaking is never an issue. Or wait until there are more/better models

I think that most 40k "collectors" or "hobbyists" still like the game and game setting, even if they don't play as much as people who would principally consider themselves gamers. And in any case, it's good money for them. I may only play two or three nights out of a month (certainly less than 40 nights a year), but I've still purchased every codex and rulebook, and a good number of the campaign and scenario books.

I get what you're saying, but i'm just watching them go from a company with a wide & diverse range of games down to a company with 3 big games: 40k (safe for the moment), Fantasy (entire range getting squatted & shrunk), Lord of the Rings (a sole and rapidly declining exception according to kirby). Hard to collect when the ranges keep shrinking.

 Torga_DW wrote:

I get what you're saying, but i'm just watching them go from a company with a wide & diverse range of games down to a company with 3 big games: 40k (safe for the moment), Fantasy (entire range getting squatted & shrunk), Lord of the Rings (a sole and rapidly declining exception according to kirby). Hard to collect when the ranges keep shrinking.

In our neck of the woods, LoTR is pretty much dead. Stuff sits on clearance at 50%, and never moves. In 2014, there were some fantastic WHFB releases though -- Treeman Ancient is one of my all-time favorite models. I guess, Space Hulk is back now, and Talisman has always been fun (yes, no minis there)

Going back to the original rumors on this thread, I don't see GW making non-core units very limited time, if for no other reason than that this makes it hard for them to make money off a sculpted model. It wouldn't really fit my buying pattern for Fantasy, either -- I buy the models just to model, but mostly I pick them up as impulse buys when there's nothing else in the store that I want (including releases from non-GW companies). It's still a pretty healthy amount of stuff, though.

Also, it causes a stocking issue with local stores -- and even GW stores. If Blightkings are no longer current, how is the store going to get rid of it? On the other hand, if the unit is really good, it will turn into a Black Lotus scenario (using MtG as an anology) -- three years later, High Elf Silver Dragon with "Power of the Ancients: Once per game, immediately remove any 3 models from the game." will be worth $10,000 when BNIB.

Talys wrote:
Going back to the original rumors on this thread, I don't see GW making non-core units very limited time, if for no other reason than that this makes it hard for them to make money off a sculpted model. It wouldn't really fit my buying pattern for Fantasy, either -- I buy the models just to model, but mostly I pick them up as impulse buys when there's nothing else in the store that I want (including releases from non-GW companies). It's still a pretty healthy amount of stuff, though.

But the trend within GW has been to go towards limited edition stuff, like any of the finecast characters (though not quite the same - it's only in store for the launch and then direct ordre from then) and most of the sales for something are within the launch window.
So I can easily see them going limited run for any non-core stuff for a few reasons; they can probably keep it direct only for more profit, it trains customers to buy stuff ASAP for more impulse purchasing, and it means they don't need as much shelf space. To GW limited run mini's is win-win.

 Orock wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

Indeed they have but they can say that all they want. Their "collectors" tend to prefer playing and if they scorn the game side so GAMES-Workshop it'll bite em in the ass, hard.

ironic that you quote that, since they are officially changing their company name to warhammer. It even says just warhammer on the front of some of their stores in england.

Did you make that up? The store name change was, according to the owner, an "experiment", whatever that means. There has been no indication that it has larger implications.

Herzlos wrote:

Talys wrote:
Going back to the original rumors on this thread, I don't see GW making non-core units very limited time, if for no other reason than that this makes it hard for them to make money off a sculpted model. It wouldn't really fit my buying pattern for Fantasy, either -- I buy the models just to model, but mostly I pick them up as impulse buys when there's nothing else in the store that I want (including releases from non-GW companies). It's still a pretty healthy amount of stuff, though.

But the trend within GW has been to go towards limited edition stuff, like any of the finecast characters (though not quite the same - it's only in store for the launch and then direct ordre from then) and most of the sales for something are within the launch window.
So I can easily see them going limited run for any non-core stuff for a few reasons; they can probably keep it direct only for more profit, it trains customers to buy stuff ASAP for more impulse purchasing, and it means they don't need as much shelf space. To GW limited run mini's is win-win.

Well, web-only (or direct-buy) is a big difference from limited time release. I'd be totally ok with web-only after a launch window for the expensive individual models, because they don't sell in the store anyhow. Even so, I think these are only finecast and metal models, which GW would like to obsolete.

For instance, Grimnar's War Council (which includes Logan Grimnar) is finecast and web-only. However, Logan Grimnar on the chariot is plastic and normal order.

Another thing that I've noticed for 40k in the last year is that other than Logan Grimnar, I don't think there have been any 40k characters released by themselves. Every named hero release has come (only) in some box set -- for instance, Karlaen with Deathstorm. There have been HQ indivudal character releases, but they are unnamed -- like Avatar, Succubus, Sanguinary Priest, BA Librarian, etc.

Frankly, this is ok with me on the characters too. It gives GW a nice, big ticket sale, but it gives me a WAY better value, model-wise, than buying a $30 individual character. Most of my characters are kitbashes anyhow; for instance, Dante made from Sanguinary Guard. Mostly, this is because I'm not really crazy about 28mm finecast models.

Regarding the bases, I'm interested in seeing whether the scenic rock bits on the new Skaven plastic characters are moulded directly to the square bases, or whether they're separate pieces that would function just as well with another base shape.

Talys wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Talys wrote:
Going back to the original rumors on this thread, I don't see GW making non-core units very limited time, if for no other reason than that this makes it hard for them to make money off a sculpted model. It wouldn't really fit my buying pattern for Fantasy, either -- I buy the models just to model, but mostly I pick them up as impulse buys when there's nothing else in the store that I want (including releases from non-GW companies). It's still a pretty healthy amount of stuff, though.

But the trend within GW has been to go towards limited edition stuff, like any of the finecast characters (though not quite the same - it's only in store for the launch and then direct ordre from then) and most of the sales for something are within the launch window.
So I can easily see them going limited run for any non-core stuff for a few reasons; they can probably keep it direct only for more profit, it trains customers to buy stuff ASAP for more impulse purchasing, and it means they don't need as much shelf space. To GW limited run mini's is win-win.

Well, web-only (or direct-buy) is a big difference from limited time release. I'd be totally ok with web-only after a launch window for the expensive individual models, because they don't sell in the store anyhow. Even so, I think these are only finecast and metal models, which GW would like to obsolete.

For instance, Grimnar's War Council (which includes Logan Grimnar) is finecast and web-only. However, Logan Grimnar on the chariot is plastic and normal order.

Another thing that I've noticed for 40k in the last year is that other than Logan Grimnar, I don't think there have been any 40k characters released by themselves. Every named hero release has come (only) in some box set -- for instance, Karlaen with Deathstorm. There have been HQ indivudal character releases, but they are unnamed -- like Avatar, Succubus, Sanguinary Priest, BA Librarian, etc.

Frankly, this is ok with me on the characters too. It gives GW a nice, big ticket sale, but it gives me a WAY better value, model-wise, than buying a $30 individual character. Most of my characters are kitbashes anyhow; for instance, Dante made from Sanguinary Guard. Mostly, this is because I'm not really crazy about 28mm finecast models.

The big problem with web only stuff is that it feths over independents. All the independent stores I am familiar with used to carry a couple of plastic boxes, enough blisters to fill out any special/rare choices that were in metal (minus big things like dragons) and then a commander or two for most forces. Then if you wanted something else, you could order it in. Direct only stuff screws that up, while independents still can order direct only stuff, the profit margins are so slim that for a lot of smaller places it's hardly worth it.

As for metal/finecast. The benefit of metal has always been that you can produce a wide range in a short time with lower initial investment. This meant more expansive ranges (IG have completely unique models for Tallarn, Vostroyan, Mordian, Steel Legion, Valhallan and even had a limited run of Praetorian Guard, that would simply not be possible with plastic). Some armies have plastic core models from the late 90's that could really use an update, but we get stuck with them because GW is busy putting out plastics to replace metal models instead of refreshing the crappy plastic core models.

Of course finecast is such a massive pile of overpriced poo that I would rather see plastics... however I would have preferred overall if GW just had of kept the metals or swapped to a not-terrible-and-overpriced resin so that we could have wider ranges of models and replace the core plastic kits more often.

Metal went direct only because they stopped making it and had a smaller inventory to work off of so it was easier to keep tabs on it and phase it out centerally.

Finecast had so many problems and was also abandoned that they had to drop it too because it was costing them money on replacement models.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[The big problem with web only stuff is that it feths over independents. All the independent stores I am familiar with used to carry a couple of plastic boxes, enough blisters to fill out any special/rare choices that were in metal (minus big things like dragons) and then a commander or two for most forces. Then if you wanted something else, you could order it in. Direct only stuff screws that up, while independents still can order direct only stuff, the profit margins are so slim that for a lot of smaller places it's hardly worth it.

As for metal/finecast. The benefit of metal has always been that you can produce a wide range in a short time with lower initial investment. This meant more expansive ranges (IG have completely unique models for Tallarn, Vostroyan, Mordian, Steel Legion, Valhallan and even had a limited run of Praetorian Guard, that would simply not be possible with plastic). Some armies have plastic core models from the late 90's that could really use an update, but we get stuck with them because GW is busy putting out plastics to replace metal models instead of refreshing the crappy plastic core models.

Of course finecast is such a massive pile of overpriced poo that I would rather see plastics... however I would have preferred overall if GW just had of kept the metals or swapped to a not-terrible-and-overpriced resin so that we could have wider ranges of models and replace the core plastic kits more often.

I'd agree with you with the web-only stuff if included current models, or even plastic models. However, the metal (and finecast) models don't sell at all at FLGS. It's so bad that I sit and wait until they are severely discounted (below the store's original purchase price) before I buy them.

In my annual boxing day hunt, I picked up 2 finecast grotesques for $13, Urien Rakarth for $10, a Sanguinor for $15, Stern for $15, and a bunch of unexciting, outdated space marine charaters/elite metal minis that finally dropped into the $7 range (this is the price point where I'll scoop up almost anything remotely useful). There were even a box full of Sisters that could be had for $6-$8, but I passed because they'll probably come out in plastic (hopefully... praying...). The thing is, most of these models were there last year -- they were just a little more, and I didn't feel like paying $18 for grotesques, nor will I ever play Urien Rakarth (I don't think so, anyhow). On the other hand, my store sells out of Sanguinary Priest, Archon, BA Librarian, Succubus, etc. all the time.

Obviously, I would prefer it if my FLGS could order in the discontinued metals, because they'd discount it for me from the web price. However, I need one of them so rarely that it's not a big deal. I don't mind web ordering *one* $15-$30 model and picking it up at a GW store... though I can't even remember the last time I did that (maybe for Draigo, or something).

I guess what I'm saying is that I highly doubt any of my stores would actually stock them if they were given the opportunity (except for a handful of popular key characters), and if *nobody* will risk stocking them, it's only fair that GW picks up the extra profit for having to deal with the inventory.

Talys wrote:
I'd agree with you with the web-only stuff if included current models, or even plastic models. However, the metal (and finecast) models don't sell at all at FLGS. It's so bad that I sit and wait until they are severely discounted (below the store's original purchase price) before I buy them.

Well, they do include "current" models in the sense that just because it wasn't in the latest release doesn't mean it's obsolete/discontinued. Just looking at the IG line, the commissars are all direct only, Yarrick, Creed, Pask, regimental advisors, basically every character other than the new plastic commissar and plastic command squad. Along with Ratlings, all the models for any regiment that isn't cadian or catachan, though even the cadian/catachan snipers are direct only, even the (plastic) single heavy weapon teams. I noticed the Hellhound has also gone direct only along with the Basilisk.

I've never seen an FLGS carry a wide range of metal stuff anyway, usually only a basic character or two for whatever army came out that month. But there's the other aspect of them being able to order them in. It's bad for customers (who can't get discounts on them) and it's bad for the FLGS (who makes feth all profit off direct only stuff).

The problem as I see it is GW is making it as unpleasant and unprofitable as possible for independents to carry their stock. It's bad for customers who want to get products easily and at a decent price, it's bad for independents who it seems are increasingly only carrying GW stuff as a favour to their customers (and increasingly pushing other games) and I think GW will find they've burned their own arses when local communities are pushed away from their products.

This might be silly conjecture (as well as entirely wrong), but are Fantasy models shown in the WD generally set up in ranks or are they freely spaced around to create dynamism?

I ask because a lot of the images of the new Skaven Stormfiends have the Empire militia and Lizardmen spaced all around them without any real rhyme or reason. It could obviously just be for pictures, I was just curious if anyone knew much about the WDs to provide some insight.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.

They are called Games Workshop. They sell their rulebooks for absurd amounts of money. The first thing they will try and sell you when you walk in the door is the starter set to play games.

The "we primarily make collectables not games" is just an excuse for poor rules and a pathetic attempt to make it seem like Chapterhouse were costing them money in that stupid court case.

And TSR stood for Tactical Studies Research. If GW were renamed Warhammer, Inc. You wouldn't like them any more or less. It's just a name


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Talys wrote:
I'd agree with you with the web-only stuff if included current models, or even plastic models. However, the metal (and finecast) models don't sell at all at FLGS. It's so bad that I sit and wait until they are severely discounted (below the store's original purchase price) before I buy them.

Well, they do include "current" models in the sense that just because it wasn't in the latest release doesn't mean it's obsolete/discontinued. Just looking at the IG line, the commissars are all direct only, Yarrick, Creed, Pask, regimental advisors, basically every character other than the new plastic commissar and plastic command squad. Along with Ratlings, all the models for any regiment that isn't cadian or catachan, though even the cadian/catachan snipers are direct only, even the (plastic) single heavy weapon teams. I noticed the Hellhound has also gone direct only along with the Basilisk.

I've never seen an FLGS carry a wide range of metal stuff anyway, usually only a basic character or two for whatever army came out that month. But there's the other aspect of them being able to order them in. It's bad for customers (who can't get discounts on them) and it's bad for the FLGS (who makes feth all profit off direct only stuff).

The problem as I see it is GW is making it as unpleasant and unprofitable as possible for independents to carry their stock. It's bad for customers who want to get products easily and at a decent price, it's bad for independents who it seems are increasingly only carrying GW stuff as a favour to their customers (and increasingly pushing other games) and I think GW will find they've burned their own arses when local communities are pushed away from their products.

Yeah, when I mean "current", I mean, in production and that sells in a normal-ish way. It's not just IG -- almost all of the single model named IC units of any faction are metal or finecast, and virtually all (maybe, actually all) of those are web-only. However, you pretty much make my point, just as I have made yours

None of my FLGS carry more than a smattering of the $25+ solo 28mm metal/finecast models, mostly because they sell really poorly -- and this means that GW has little incentive to sell product to them at a wholesale price. Plus, since they don't want to make more finecast/metal, this lets them stretch their inventory. How long have Grotesques been out of stock direct?

On the other hand, the same process makes it annoying to independents (or even GW stores) who can't get stock of the OOP, but still in-codex and in-inventory models. The Independents are screwed either way, because if they stock the IC models, all they do is take up shelf space for months or years until they are flogged off; or, if they don't their customers are unhappy that they can't get the one hero they want.

The solution, of course, is obvious: reduce the price of named characters, or sell them in a box set, so that more players buy more named characters. If the named characters were closer to $15, I'd buy every single one; at $30, I only buy the ones that I really want/need, and I'll kitbash my way through most of them (like Draigo with GK, Dante with Sanguinary, etc.)

It was never really a problem that an independent wouldn't stock every single metal blister as they could just order the ones they need as customers wanted them. It would be silly for them to think they could. I started playing in the mid 90's and even back then my FLGS didn't carry the full range of metals, they just had a few token blisters here any there.

It would only really matter to huge independent stores that do enough business and have enough space to store them all.

The move to direct only was less a problem with stores wanting to maintain a huge stock of blisters but rather the move to direct only was accompanied by a massive reduction in the margin for independents.

 Accolade wrote:
This might be silly conjecture (as well as entirely wrong), but are Fantasy models shown in the WD generally set up in ranks or are they freely spaced around to create dynamism?

I ask because a lot of the images of the new Skaven Stormfiends have the Empire militia and Lizardmen spaced all around them without any real rhyme or reason. It could obviously just be for pictures, I was just curious if anyone knew much about the WDs to provide some insight.

Good point. I was looking at older books and they're almost always ranked up. Can't say for WD.