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.

 Talys wrote:
Most of the apprehension comes from GW's willingness to change design foundations mid-cycle. For sample, 7.0 codexes are generally good and in alignment with each other, and 7.5 (post-Decurion) are in alignment with each other too. .

And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.

This is a big part of the reason I would like to see them abandon the Codex model entirely - just release all of the army lists with the new edition (ala 3rd edition) and then use the lifespan of that edition to release campaign books, formations and new (rules in box) units. Lets them distribute new stuff evenly for everyone, and has everyone starting (and theoretically progressing) if not on a perfectly level playing field, at least on the same playing field.

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Most of the apprehension comes from GW's willingness to change design foundations mid-cycle. For sample, 7.0 codexes are generally good and in alignment with each other, and 7.5 (post-Decurion) are in alignment with each other too. .

And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.

This is a big part of the reason I would like to see them abandon the Codex model entirely - just release all of the army lists with the new edition (ala 3rd edition) and then use the lifespan of that edition to release campaign books, formations and new (rules in box) units. Lets them distribute new stuff evenly for everyone, and has everyone starting (and theoretically progressing) if not on a perfectly level playing field, at least on the same playing field.

Yeah, I've been on board with this model for a long time. The difficulty, of course, being that there are so many lists now, it would be a big, expensive volume to have every rule page from every codex, even minus all the fluff and such.

Still, it's just paper, and I'd love to see a digital and paper version of this released so that everyone's on the same playing field each go-around. Incremental stuff with models and in White Dwarf is cool, too, just add it to a yearly volume update.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're incapable. They'll get halfway through '7.5' then 8 will drop and the whole merry go round starts again.

They'd rather manipulate people into buying minor updates that don't fundamentally change anything in the army other than further manipulate model purchases than try and make a product people are excited to buy because of its quality and have people buy loads of models because they're excited to play.

Well, you can see it as either sinister, or unplanned. The sinister version is that they're doing this because GW is being devious. I think the more likely probability is that when someone comes up with a good idea, they just do it, without really considering what's out already for the table and how it will impact those players until the next cycle. Or they think about it, but figure it's better to get the cool idea out.

Really, the 7.0 codex releases are pretty much in line with the 6.0 codex releases, especially if you take out Wave Serpent and MSS as a design flaw. Once it hit 7.5, BAM, the whole dynamic changed. Now we're talking about Space Marine Companies, Skyhammer formations, Mechanicus Convocations, Decurions, and Warhosts -- versus "Is CAD worth it?". Or, "should I take x formation with CAD"? And I think this is a healthy place for listbuilding to be.

Now, as I said, I really like 7.5, except power level differences against 6.0 and 7.0 lists. So I guess, I remain hopeful that they'll carry through this good idea. It would be a wonderful thing if they would update 7.0 via white dwarf (how hard would it be to give Dark Eldar a superformation?), but of course, I'm dreaming in Technicolor here

Sinister or unplanned?

Either way, altogether now, a fething stupid way to run a business.

xraytango wrote:
I always love it when they say "in line with market expectations".

Yeah, if the market expects lower sales volumes and increasing prices.

I wonder what these "modest sales growths" are. Perhaps it is only them saying that they saw sales growth where it hadn't been before because there were other sales channels that were selling those products.

Notice they didn't say a "modest sales growth overall". They are making qualified statements for some reason.

I wonder if we will see an overall down trend as we have these last couple of years.

There should be a good reason why their sales have declined in an industry that has seen an aggregate 45% growth over the last three years ( appx 14%-16% each year)

Of course we see that they should be the industry leader yet <strikes deceased equine> they are not.

One day all otiose things shall be gone and they won't have to worry about it.

A "decline in our own stores", da crap does that even mean? Declining sales in their stores or a reduction in the number of stores?

I could see it as fewer sales in their stores due to NOTHING is being done to actually promote their stores!

In line with expectations means just that. Personally, my expectations is that they will move to be back in line with their revenues prior to the LOTR bubble. That would be a realistic expectation of where the Company would be moving to. Especially it WHFB is flat and they still have some special LOTR bubble item that came out (ie Smaug or other limited release item).

I wouldn't expect GW to have the same growth as most of the relatively new start ups. They are not a start up and to pin them against a start up is not fair because they are a mature company. They face very different hurdles. The one thing that stands out to me as them being well run is their aversion to debt financing. I believe that Companies who can operate debt free are run better than those who grow through debt financing. GW doesn't have to keep the capital on hand as a result and is able to toss it back to the owners which is nice (and how my share in GW continues to grow even when the rest of the market is sucking wind).

@boyd - Indeed, GW's aversion to debt and it's ability to finance or operate without outside debt is certainly significant. I don't think it's a very sexy equity or anything, because there's no likelihood of explosive growth; they're unlikely to become a billion dollar much less a 50 billion dollar company any time soon.

You make a good point that a mature company shouldn't be held to the same growth standard as a young company (after all, quadrupling $10,000 in sales isn't that hard, nor that exciting). But also, we don't know how much companies within the industry has grown, and the number people quote always includes the CCG segment, which is a very different business that GW doesn't care about getting into.

It would be interesting to see how much money Privateer Press, or Reaper, or Mantic, or Dreamforge grew, invested in development, invested in market research, or profited. Of course, we don't have that because they're privately held. But without it, it is impossible to tell how GW is doing with respect to comparables, because the industry could be growing simply because there are more entrants, and everyone could be getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

For anyone that thinks GW is going to "fail" and it's stock price will plummet... you should short GAW. You'll make a killing if you're right!

@Azrael - Insaniak has it right. No matter WHERE they start doing a fundamental change, SOMEONE will get screwed for about 2 years (assuming that's the codex cycle). So it doesn't matter if they do it mid-cycle, or at the beginning of 8e. If you're first to get a codex, yay, if you're last, sucks to be you. This time around, Necron got it first, leaving BA rather butthurt, because they won't get a force org revamp til like, 2017.

The proper solution is to release changes for everyone as fundamental as force organization concurrently, whatever that frequency is. Within those constraints, they can add stuff like new models, or even new formations, being mindful to keep power levels relatively stable between factions.

To take a roleplaying analogy, it would be like upgrading all of the swords in January, all of the polearms in June, and all of the magical Staves in December. It really doesn't make any sense to do that, since the *game* is combination of them all.

Dude, I don't know if it's by accident or on purpose but you're speaking to me like I'm simple, and I don't appreciate it. I don't need you to explain Insaniak's point to me, I'm quite capable of grasping it for myself, thanks.

Does the fact that there's an elegant solution to the issue of codex creep not further reinforce my point that the way things are done now in many ways is a fething stupid way of running a business?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Dude, I don't know if it's by accident or on purpose but you're speaking to me like I'm simple, and I don't appreciate it. I don't need you to explain Insaniak's point to me, I'm quite capable of grasping it for myself, thanks.

Does the fact that there's an elegant solution to the issue of codex creep not further reinforce my point that the way things are done now in many ways is a fething stupid way of running a business?

I know that the answer my Fantasy group found for Army creep was to switch games entirely....

As for the folks saying that GW's financial leaders must know what they are doing... the legal cluster-frack that they got into about Chapterhouse shows that at least one of the high level people really is completely incompetent in regards to the very thing that he was supposed to specialize in. (Mr. Merritt did not know the difference between Trademark and Copyright - and apparently had no idea that third party after market parts are freakin' legal!)

And Merritt was hand chosen by Kirby, I do believe....

The Auld Grump

@Az - I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing or condescending (or whatever) -- I'm not trying to be.

I'm agreeing that a simultaneous army list would be preferable, but I'm also saying that in the alternative, it doesn't matter to me when the cycle changes because no matter what someone gets the short end of the stick when the system fundamentally changes.

While there may be a better way to do things, that doesn't mean that I think GW is stupid (or that you are). There are a lot of shades between unplayable and perfect; we all have a different opinion of where that needle falls and each is equally valid.

Anyhow, I don't want to get argumentative and I've spent far too much of my life on this thread, so I will disengage.

Cheers, peace, game on

 Talys wrote:
@Az - I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing or condescending (or whatever) -- I'm not trying to be.

I was introduced to the fine word "mansplain".
Ruined explaining anything to anyone for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
Heard the person who coined it on CBC radio.

I agree with the idea that power levels get switched mid-stream so these codex "inequities" are what drive people around the bend.
I see that enough as they rotate through my various armies where I have to keep adjusting what models I have to a painted level of play to match these formations.

Or they could just update like PP and CB do.

 notprop wrote:
Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.

Baragash wrote:You do not need sales data (in the sense of "data you could analyse and draw meaningful conclusions from") to publish management accounts.

How else would you be able to split and sort your revenue?

That same information can be used to glean all sorts of info and trends; it's what made Dunnhumby so mega rich.

Management accounts do not require sales data to produce because a) management accounts are no where near as detailed as transactional data, which is where you really want to go to do good analysis and b) management accounts are typically produced from the invoicing data set because it makes accounting with regard to revenue recognition a much more straightforward process.

I would concede that it probably exists, but whether GW has the skills and the systems to analyse it properly, and is using it to make rational decisions is far from a safe assumption. Related anecdote: there was a period of about 2-3 years where I was a regular visitor to WHW playing tournies, every time I went the business analyst role was being advertised on the jobs board in the canteen (I'm not going anywhere with that other than I find it amusing, unfortunately the pay sucked and having worked for GW for 4 years some time prior to that, I think I'd rather have shoved my head in a wasps' nest).

Prior to 6th edition (from my perspective, the reset to 3rd, and the incremental changes in 4th and 5th) there was a possibility and even a reasonable expectation that the rules would be improved and "finished", after which all the faction codexes would be brought up to the same, finished standard, with proper balance, etc. Whether that was ever an option that GW considered, I don't know.

However, surely it is obvious today that GW's business model is to continuously make changes to 40K that invalidate earlier rulesets and codexes. That is very clear indeed from the way GW have released new kits and whole new areas of rules since the advent of 6th edition.

 insaniak wrote:

And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.

I used to think that GW had such things as a design philosophy, a direction or a mind-set. I was also annoyed by the fact that they seemingly were consistently inconsistent in being able to apply said "philosophy" to more than 2-4 codexes in a row.

I have now changed my mind.
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds.

Any illusion of a systematic well thought-out approach to codex-design is simply retroactively created by us looking back at the various codexes. The human mind is pattern-seeking, and we will attempt to impose a pattern even when one does't exist.

Steelmage99 wrote:
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..

That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.

Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.

 insaniak wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..

That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.

Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.

And people that are under the direction of the sales department at that.

The Auld Grump

 insaniak wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..

That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.

Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.

Out of curiosity, why is it inappropriate to describe a professional as "incompetent" when evaluating the quality of that professional's work?

A slight phrasing change would result in:

"I do not think that Games Workshop employs competent game designers," or "In my opinion, Games Workshop's employees are not competent game designers," or "I think the designers are not competent to develop a coherent rules system, and are instead flailing about and making whatever comes into their minds."

If a client told me that I am incompetent at my job, I would feel insulted (I think that I am very competent at my job), but the statement would not necessarily be an insult.

"Incompetent" is a label, but more a judgement of quality than of value. 'You are too stupid to get the job done right', for example, is different from 'You are not competent to do the job'.

I might interpret the latter as the former, and have a negative emotional response, but that's on me, not the person who said it.

Steelmage99 wrote:

I have now changed my mind.
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds.

It really bugs me when people say this...

The designers at gw are not incompetent. Give them creative control, give them the tools to build the games, and they can generally do solid work. Chambers. allesio. Ronny. Priestly. And so on.There is a lot of genuine talent within the company.

What isn't there however is creative control. They are not the movers and shakers in the company. They are not the shot callers. Even getting in white dwarf is pr, as it offers negligible 'real' power, and in actual fact can work against them.They are seen as the promotions department of a toy company, and gw is a hire and fire company, where job security is a luxury only for those above a certain level. So in other words, you don't Rock the boat.

You are talking about a company where 'game designers' is a title, not a reality, and it's that simple. They are given a project brief to fulfil, and a timeline to do it in. Anything outside that limited scope? No, sorry...I genuinely believe that a lot of the designers would love to do a lot of things differently, but the word from on high is 'no, you do this'.

Remember as well, a lot of the design of gw games is rooted within historical games, it's a different mentality from 'organised play'. I just ready the hail Caesar rules. Good fun, and not a single 'army' has points costs associated with it. Gw games can work when approached in the same way.

People complain about all the different design philosophies throughout the game's history (and rightly so)" but bear in mind, gw corporate doesn't want a balanced game. They don't want everyone singing off of the same hymn sheet. shifting the design ethos every couple of codices is nothing more thst their way of future proofing the requirement to update the other codices in the future as a response. In other words, it's about selling the next ten codices. If they had all their codices working from a similar power level, everyone would play that edition and not bother with anything else in their minds...

Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight?

Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems don't have points costs is because they are designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known. Hannibal doesn't suddenly have 500 Elephants when facing Scipio etc.

That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


And people that are under the direction of the marketing department at that.

The Auld Grump

They don't have a marketing department. Under the direction of the sales department, sure.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight?
.

Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.

The problem is gw's corporate attitude, not their designers.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems wouldn't have points costs is because they is designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known.

No. With respect, All you're demonstrating is a lack of creativity and an inflexible attitude towards how to play wargames.

It doesn't have to be about any particular 'recreation' - that shows a fundamental lack of comprehension of the games in question and what they represent, and what they can represent. Yes, you can use them for reenactments, but you cal also do other stuff, just as you can recreate historical battles in 40k or do your own. It's about immersion in history and bringing those old eras to life on the tabletop as much as anything else.
I can just as easily play my Romans or Greeks against my mates Gauls or Carthaginians quite happily, and it doesn't have to recreate any particular 'named' battle. It just needs a co-operative attitude.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.

Except it does. The Right attitude. Likeminded individuals. That's all it takes.

Seriously, try it. Find some old boys that play historicals, and have a few games with and against them. Immerse yourself in how they play. It's quite fun. Its actually gone and given me a new sense of perspective and enjoyment in how I view, enjoy and participate in wargames since I've started doing this alongside my infinities and warmachines. It's a nice sidestep from 'organised play' which is also fun, but 'organised play' doesn't encompass all thst wargames are, or all wargames should be about.

Deadnight wrote:


Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.

That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.

The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character. GW corporate doesn't force them to write the rules badly. They just so far haven't given any evidence of being able to write them well.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.

That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.

The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.

Except it does.

Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. They do what they're told, otherwise they're out on their ass, and it's a small enough industry thst they can't just March up and start elsewhere with no problems. 'Sell the new tyranid monstrous creatures'. Nerf the old ones. 'Design and Sell giant centrepiece models like riptides'. So... You do it. Remember, thryre not necessarily the ones behind the rules writing. It's very much a secondary concern within the company, and the protestations of the game designers mean vEry little. All it takes is one middle management aching to show how big his balls are and he'lol push the studio to do x and y and z. And if they don't, they can walk. That's the reality.

Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.

Deadnight wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.

That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.

The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.

Except it does.

Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.

So, you're telling me that the GW corporate overlords wanted them to write rules for a detachment which could not, within the most basic rules of the game, fill all of its possible slots? You may need to explain to me how that is good for GW corporate as it means they can sell less models for that particular formation.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[

So, you're telling me that the GW corporate overlords wanted them to write rules for a detachment which could not, within the most basic rules of the game, fill all of its possible slots? You may need to explain to me how that is good for GW corporate as it means they can sell less models for that particular formation.

It honestly just would not surprise me malus. They're a model making company - rules are just something else to shift at the end of the day. If he corporate says 'write up a formation', you write up a formation. If you have extremely tight deadlines to get it to printing and what not, well then you can't be entirely blamed for a mistake or two, or not crossing all your ts and dotting all of your i's, especially for something as minor as that! Getting it to the printers and getting it out is the number one. Deadlines and all that. If it's problematic, just figure it out. If it's not within the basic rules, just change it, or make it up would be their attitude. Rulebook says that too. You know - the 'figure it out yourself' diy gamer thing and 'work it out with your opponent'.I'm sure some people will enjoy the tinkering or wil handwave away the bits thst are problematic. Shrug. Don't like it? Shrug harder.

By the way, I Never said it was 'good' either, or thst I agree with it - this is just thst is the attitude within certain parts of the company. Remember, not everyone at gw is a gamer, and gamers are looked down upon by a lot of the executives and middle management there.

Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.

 warboss wrote:
Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.

Or not having time or resources for it. I'm sure the design team does care. They just can't do anything about it. Not the shot callers, remember?

Playtesting takes a long time, and we can't have employees arsing about playing games on company time on a Friday. Plenty more important stuff to do at tge end of the day.

So the result?

Designer complains. Rocks the boat for upper management.

Corporate doesn't listen. Corporate doesn't care.

Designer gets told to get on with his job or there's the door.

At the end of the day, where do you go? Let's be cynical for a second. Gamers are in general quite a toxic, stuck up and community thst often stinks of self righteousness and entitlment, with many amongst our ranks who hateeverything you do anyway.why bother trying to please them when they'll never be pleased by snything you'll do. Look at the hate matt ward got. I can imagine thst kind of vitriol wearing you down, especially when so little of what you do is your own call. In the end, you stop giving a damn and trying to please the unpleasable. Do your job go home. Ignore the Internet wailings. Move on with your life...

It's like any one of thousands of companies out there. Heck my own is the same. Ask the folks on the bottom rungs what's wrong and what needs fixed, and they'll tell you. Ask management to do it, and they make it so bloody hard to do anything, you go back to the old way for a quiet life. Any change is slow, incredibly expensive and laborious. It generally sucks. But that's life.

I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

weeble1000 wrote:

Out of curiosity, why is it inappropriate to describe a professional as "incompetent" when evaluating the quality of that professional's work?

Because it's rude .

If a client told me that I am incompetent at my job, I would feel insulted (I think that I am very competent at my job), but the statement would not necessarily be an insult..

A statement that you feel insulted by is pretty much by definition an insult .

This is not , however, the place for an in depth discussion on appropriate behaviour. For the purposes of this thread , I'm drawing a line at calling people incompetent. Move on.

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

The problem with that is that is that many of the problems are very obvious to even non-minmax gamers.

The Dark Angel Ravenwing formation issue, for example, was brought up on something like the page after the full rules were leaked (it had been noticed before but it was thought that the rules for gaining the Ravenwing rule might be somewhere else). The whole problem is literally "Only models with rule X can be part of detachment. Detachment has 3 HQ slots. Only one HQ unit has rule X and is unique so cannot be taken 3 times."

That's not something that would make it past someone writing even a super casual list using that detachment.

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

This wouldn't surprise me. It's not a 'wrong' way of playing, but it's not all wargaming can be or should be about either.