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.

 the clone wrote:
i see your point, most of my minis will never see the table ang just gather dust on my shelf

I like to think that most (51+%) of my minis will have seen the tabletop at least once, but I think I need to do a better job of making stuff playable, and forcing myself to play it.

I often think when people ask for better rules from GW .And say that they want more than just to collect minatures, they want a good game to use them in.
The people that mainly just collect minatures, (or even just buy product and never get round to assembling and painting most of it.)
Seem to think that 'gamers' are having a go at the 'collectors.'

Where as the gamers just need more motivation to buy the product than the collectors do.
And if GW could put just a bit more effort, into improving game play.Maybe GW would have a growing market share instead of a shrinking one?

If GW plc added value to their product by improving rules quality, it would appeal to more customers.
The more customers you have the less profit you need to make per item sold.So prices do not have to be increased to cover falling sales volumes.
(Because sales volumes would be increasing!)
This improves value for money , and so gains even more customers.Which increases profit off stable prices even more.

I really can not understand how people who want GW plc to succeed and grow their customer base by being pro active and engaging with more customers,
can be called 'GW haterz.'

Unless you do not use deductive reasoning and just assume that any sort of critique, no matter how valid or supported is just 'hate'.

Where as ..
It it good enough for me , so it must be good enough for everyone ...I can afford it, so every one should be able to...

Appear to be the opinions of those who try to defend the actions of GW corporate management.
As they are GW plcs corporate managements primary demographic in a shrinking customer base.

I have gone from buying lots and lots of GW stuff (10-15 years ago) to basically not buying any GW stuff (last 5 years). That I continue to play the occasional GW game instead of liquidating my GW collection doesn't make me some sort of apologist or supporter. Nor does my choice to stop buying GW product in favor of higher-value (mostly KS) board games make me some sort of hater.

There is a range of hobby out there. As Jervis says, players should take ownership of their gaming experience, and I think I do so. As a garage gamer, I have the freedom to play older Codices on a whim, along with House Rules to take out the tedium (e.g. closest first).

I'm not even sure there is a strategy for GW to recapture my hobby / gaming spend. I have a lifetime's worth of GW minis which I am slowly working through to get playable. I have plenty enough rulesets to pick and choose through. I am very challenged imagining what might compel me to buy another Codex ever so slightly different from what I currently play, or buying more models while I'm still working on getting other models fully painted.

I know exactly what GW have to do to recapture my £.

1. Lower prices to a reasonable level. That doesnt necessarily mean lower than anyone else, it means not the daft prices they are now.
2. Release a ruleset tbat maintains the unique flavour and setting of the universe. That means no daft allies allowed, Chaos isnt essentially homogenous, troops are an actually valid choice etc
3. Re engage with the community. Have official tournaments again. Stop sueing the bejesus out of everyone (especially those who are keeping your murdered games alive)
4. Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl etc. Resurrection.
5. Tell your shop staff to calm the hell down.

then we will talk.

i have them too! i do admit they are nice but they are also a pain to assemble, i had to use clamps on mine to keep them together

 Pete Melvin wrote:
I know exactly what GW have to do to recapture my £.

1. Lower prices to a reasonable level. That doesnt necessarily mean lower than anyone else, it means not the daft prices they are now.
2. Release a ruleset tbat maintains the unique flavour and setting of the universe. That means no daft allies allowed, Chaos isnt essentially homogenous, troops are an actually valid choice etc
3. Re engage with the community. Have official tournaments again. Stop sueing the bejesus out of everyone (especially those who are keeping your murdered games alive)
4. Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl etc. Resurrection.
5. Tell your shop staff to calm the hell down.

then we will talk.

I'd add: Balance the game to an acceptable level.

i agree, with all the special rules and phases it isnt that fun to play any more. i liked it when games were simple, fun and enjoyable like in 3rd, 3rd was definitely the last edition to have the rogue trader 'feel' to It

migooo wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.

Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.

I think he just took a naieve approach - he needed £300k to do it and was up front, but that put people off. If he needed £30k to do the rule book and then add everything else in with stretch goals they'd have smashed through the £300k limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.

What do you regard as a "fast, casual game" because Rick P has been involved in what are generally regarded as the best casual games in most eras.

It wasn't just that, though.

I'll be honest, I'm going completely by memory here.

However, I remember getting annoyed by an interview afterwards where he was saying that he didn't really 'get' kickstarter, the experience wasn't what he expected etc, etc.
All I could remember thinking was:

"Dude, you're going up in front of the internet, asking for more than a quarter of a million pounds from them. The very LEAST you could have done was some proper research first. I'm assuming you would have done some if you were going to a bank for a loan."

And, again, this a completely personal opinion and probably my own failing due to being grumpy, but still, I got really quite annoyed that a couple of months after the kickstarter finished, there was another interview where he was talking about his heated gaming room he had built out of a barn and the huge amount of money it cost him but it was worth it. That just made me go, "really, really?"

I'm completely willing to admit my grumpiness is irrational and again, I'd like to state that I'm fully aware of his impact on the industry.

But still, irrational grumpiness is irrational.

Herzlos wrote:

migooo wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.

Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.

I think he just took a naieve approach - he needed £300k to do it and was up front, but that put people off. If he needed £30k to do the rule book and then add everything else in with stretch goals they'd have smashed through the £300k limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.

What do you regard as a "fast, casual game" because Rick P has been involved in what are generally regarded as the best casual games in most eras.

But he didn't, he wanted everything upfront. And had very little prep work for what he was asking for.

Look everybody thinks that they can use KS to get funding for x, y and z now but honestly , the few I've been involved in would have probably been published anyway, if on longer schedules.

Look he has great ideas there is no denying this, he just needs help in certain things we all do. Maybe he has too many people telling him everything he does is fantastic

Personally I want a game system to rival GW, I think the industry needs it.

i do think that it was a bit, i dunno, 'strange' to ask for 300000 pounds from the internet considering how little he seemed to have prepared

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.

True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.

True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.

Indeed...If it wasn't for the game no one sane would buy the ridiculous multiples of minis just to complete their armies.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.

True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.

I think it's just an excuse to justify the lack of caring about the rules. They've convinced themselves they make toys and not a game so everything has been distorted to fit that narrative.

If the target audience really was nothing but collectors, then why is there a thriving market for third party models that are obvious representations for 40k stuff? The fantasy knock-offs can be used in a ton of different stuff, but there's really only one 40k.

Really, the prices could all stay the same. They just need to rewrite the rules and stop points inflation. Make a 10 man tactical squad + a rhino a solid portion of an army and something imposing on the table. Make five terminators something to fear and ten terminators a "ZOMG, SKEW!". Make Marines, and all the other factions, fall inline with the over the top style fluff of amazing madness. If people still want to play MASSIVE battles, then you can do so, but those of use that want a solid game pitched in the Grimdark Future of the 41st Millenium™ something affordable and fun versus a massive money sink for a random-filled slog with a constant "will it be crap?" roulette that is codex releases.

Also, put every single unit option/loadout in the box. Can take four melta guns? Have four melta guns in the box!

I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some termies if $50 got me something impactful. I pay close to $100 for a Colossal in Warmahordes, but it's 40% of an army and can pull 50%+ of the work with the right support. The same could be said of GWs showpiece large models.

That's about as optimistic/positive I will get on the subject of GW.

 TheKbob wrote:
If the target audience really was nothing but collectors, then why is there a thriving market for third party models that are obvious representations for 40k stuff? The fantasy knock-offs can be used in a ton of different stuff, but there's really only one 40k.

Really, the prices could all stay the same. They just need to rewrite the rules and stop points inflation. Make a 10 man tactical squad + a rhino a solid portion of an army and something imposing on the table. Make five terminators something to fear and ten terminators a "ZOMG, SKEW!". Make Marines, and all the other factions, fall inline with the over the top style fluff of amazing madness. If people still want to play MASSIVE battles, then you can do so, but those of use that want a solid game pitched in the Grimdark Future of the 41st Millenium™ something affordable and fun versus a massive money sink for a random-filled slog with a constant "will it be crap?" roulette that is codex releases.

Also, put every single unit option/loadout in the box. Can take four melta guns? Have four melta guns in the box!

I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some termies if $50 got me something impactful. I pay close to $100 for a Colossal in Warmahordes, but it's 40% of an army and can pull 50%+ of the work with the right support. The same could be said of GWs showpiece large models.

That's about as optimistic/positive I will get on the subject of GW.

Exactly. That's the problem in a nutshell.

But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.

The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.

migooo wrote:
But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.

The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.

are you saying that Inquisitor minis were GW's line of Collector's Figures???
as far as i remember from the prerelease hype, it was billed as a new game, not a Collector's Series...
as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...
the models themselves seemed to sell pretty well, and have become very collectible since they went OOP...

everything that i can recall being billed as Collector's Sets have sold well, such as the foil-packed Gotrek & Friends set, or the Skullz sets, which spurred people to buy a ton of minis to get those little stickers so they could exchange them for the Adeptus Mechanicus set of minis, or the Space Marine Iwo Jima set...

as for detail, i think GW minis are detailed enough for collectors...
i have been one for 30 years...
never been a gamer...
i am in it for the art, fiction, and minis...
most of the complaints that i have heard is that GW are cluttering their minis with too much detail...

personally, i prefer painting 28mm to 54mm minis...
i have enjoyed painting 54mm and 72mm minis, but not as much as 28mm...
all of the little "cheats" that work on a 28mm mini go out the window when working on the larger scale...
the bigger i go, the less it feels like "mini" painting...

cheers
jah

Inquisitor, like Warmaster, Mordheim, the Epic and Necromunda relaunch and others didn't even exist long enough to judge whether they tanked or not. Basically, you had 6 months of releases, then they vanished, never to be mentioned again in white dwarf. Then 6 months after their last release, they disappeared from the shelves.

Or at least, that was my experience.

 jah-joshua wrote:

migooo wrote:
But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.

The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.

are you saying that Inquisitor minis were GW's line of Collector's Figures???
as far as i remember from the prerelease hype, it was billed as a new game, not a Collector's Series...
as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...
the models themselves seemed to sell pretty well, and have become very collectible since they went OOP...

everything that i can recall being billed as Collector's Sets have sold well, such as the foil-packed Gotrek & Friends set, or the Skullz sets, which spurred people to buy a ton of minis to get those little stickers so they could exchange them for the Adeptus Mechanicus set of minis, or the Space Marine Iwo Jima set...

as for detail, i think GW minis are detailed enough for collectors...
i have been one for 30 years...
never been a gamer...
i am in it for the art, fiction, and minis...
most of the complaints that i have heard is that GW are cluttering their minis with too much detail...

personally, i prefer painting 28mm to 54mm minis...
i have enjoyed painting 54mm and 72mm minis, but not as much as 28mm...
all of the little "cheats" that work on a 28mm mini go out the window when working on the larger scale...
the bigger i go, the less it feels like "mini" painting...

cheers


jah

No they released a set of Gotrek & Felix figures as well as a set of Blanche Femme militant figures, those were the collectors I'm referring too. Stores near me had sets left for a long time.

Perhaps in some people's opinions they might be detailed enough. But the plastic kits they only do now I honestly don't think so.

Look at stuff like Kingdom Death or the Bootleg Infinity, or even the latest releases from Malifaux. GW seem to be lacking compared to them.

@migooo: Blanche released the Femme Militant line himself as a small limited edition run, and they sold out very quickly...
they are now rarer than hen's teeth, and command a high price if you can find anyone willing to part with any...
i never saw them available in a GW store, or else i would have snapped them up...
at the time they were available, my local GW was the L.A. Battle Bunker, which had nearly all of the Forge World line, but not a single Femme Militant mini...

i mentioned the Gotrek & Friends set in my post...
they sold out online, and at all of the shops around L.A., within a year, but again, they were limited edition...
they seemed like a popular set to me...
GW has never had a Collector's Series, which, in my opinion would be qualified as a line of figures that stay in production, but are aimed at the collectors, so not needing game rules...

Forge World had the large scale Collector's Series models, which sold alright, but the large scale put a lot of people off...
sadly they went OOP, too...
for people who are more gamers than painters, the larger scale seems to be a scary challenge to tackle, from the majority of the comments i've seen...

for me, the humble Tactical Squad plastic Space Marine is detailed enough to enjoy collecting and painting, and have been since the first Rogue Trader Marines were released, all those years ago...
if they are not detailed enough for you, that's cool...

i have checked out Kingdom Death, and there is nothing there that inspires me to collect the minis...

i have a few Malifaux minis, but have yet to get urge to paint one...
the setting is just not my thing...

Infinity Bootleg is a nice range of models, and inspire me more that KD and Malifaux, simply because they are Sci-Fi, which is my preference...
i love most of Infinity's line of minis, and have collected a ton of them, but they still don't inspire me to paint as much as the humble Space Marine does...

if you really want to talk about beautiful minis, Studio Mcvey's L.E.'s are some of the most perfectly cast, amazing sculpts that i own, but they still don't inspire me to paint as much as a plastic Tac. Marine does...

you will like what you like, and i will like what i like...
obviously, as a collector of almost every line of miniatures made in the last 30 years, but a painter who prefers Space Marines over everything else, i am not going to see eye to eye with you on this issue...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

GW has never had a Collector's Series, which, in my opinion would be qualified as a line of figures that stay in production, but are aimed at the collectors, so not needing game rules...

Actually GW did have a collectors series. Although, they were pretty much just old miniatures packaged in "collector series" blisters. The entire range can be viewed here: http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Collectors_Series

 jah-joshua wrote:
as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...

It wasn't that people didn't like the rules, it's that they didn't go anywhere with them.

It was essentially an RPG, but they just released a rulebook and said 'There you go!' ... aside from a bare handful of material released in the short-lived magazine that each of the Specialist games briefly had, it was left up to the players to do all the work in creating campaigns for it.


The issue with scale was more down to the small range of models, and being incompatible with anything else on the market limiting the ability to use stand-ins or conversions.


It was a game with a lot of potential, but that just didn't go anywhere because GW didn't adequately support it.

Funnily enough, if GW HAD actually marketed the Inquisitor models years later as collector pieces when they let the game die, they probably would have done rather well.

I think it was even just back in 2010 that I eventually bought the Battle Brother Artemis model as the mascot for my Blood Ravens army.

I think we all need to take a step back for a moment and look at this objectively.

Point - Games Workshop has stated that their target demographic is 'collectors'.

Counter Point - We do not know how Games Workshop defines 'collectors'.

I see it as... A collector can be a gamer, but a gamer is not always a collector.

Point - A collector, in my experience, is usually devoted to one style and/or brand of item and they care about quality. Let's assume for a moment that GW uses this line of thought. That would mean that their target customer (the collector) is someone who is brand loyal, will assemble an army using only Citadel miniatures and perhaps paint that army using Citadel modeling supplies. Every businesses dream customer I would think and sentiments known to be expressed in GW's explanation of the HHHobby. And of course not everyone will be interested in accumulating models just to put on display, like most people they will want to put their amie(s) to use - they'll play the game as well.

Counter Point - Gamers are, in my experience, only interested in playing a game and to them it doesn't matter what models, terrain and/or aids are used or even if the models are painted (sometimes it does't even matter if they're assembled). They want to, at it's most basic sense of the the phrase, 'play a game' and nothing more.

As I always say, if GW target collectors why do they make only figures for a game that come in basic configurations outlined in the rules. Seems like they are a game company.

Tasty from Blood of Kittens is commenting on this now:
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/02/27/meat-meta-sum-fears/

I was going to comment on his site, but you can't. I think his assumptions on Mr. Priestley's knowledge of the inner workings of GW is inaccurate, but the main point would be that these comments are getting more traction in the community.

I'm not surprised you can't comment, I suspect something that poorly informed and full of assumptions (as well as biased, but, hey, it is at least not ashamed to admit that) would attract comments that would make moderating them a full time job for several days.

What a comically terrible article.

 insaniak wrote:
It was a game with a lot of potential, but that just didn't go anywhere because GW didn't adequately support it.

Which can be said for a lot of their specialist games.