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.

Operation Icestorm barely sold over here. Only one store actually carried it at all, and out of a 4 or 5 copies, a bunch stayed on the shelf for a long time (I bought one!). I don't even think they all sold yet. The new WMH war boxes sell quite well, for instance, in comparison. In about half a year, we'll see if Sigmar did anything positive for GW's bottom line and then we can all obsess over whether GW is going out of business or not all over again. Or maybe I'll smarten up and stop posting on these threads, and go back to spending more time painting minis

I digress on the topic of "competitive" -- I think I've said all that I can.

As Motograter said, play it if you like it, skip it if you don't, and happy gaming either way!

No, you were on topic until you said "I digress" and then you digressed...

I'm curious as to where you got you stats for O:I from?

 Talys wrote:
I also said that my wife, whom I did not expect to ever buy more than a couple of starter packs has now spent a couple of thousand dollars over 10 years or so. This doesn't represent millionaires, and I said that although I dint think she'll buy AoD minis that add up to a hill of beans beyond the starter, who knows?

Yes, every rule has its occasional exceptions. But as a general rule the kind of person who enjoys playing a game of MTG where nobody does anything but look at the pretty pictures on the cards for 30 turns is not going to make a significant financial investment in their game. Where the millionaires bit comes in is that GW seems to be targeting the "ultra-casual" players who will spend a lot on AoS, not because they're willing to invest heavily into a game, but because they're so rich that they treat buying AoS like you or I might treat buying a $1 snack at the local gaming store.

You, on the other hand, dismiss every segment that you can't understand or is wildly different from your viewpoint as irrelevant, marginal, or unprofitable.

That's not true at all. I accept that there are profitable markets that enjoy things that I don't. For example, I have a lot of problems with WM/H and would never play the game, but it's very obviously successful at marketing to its target audience and making a lot of money. My problem with AoS is not a failure to understand differing viewpoints, it's that I think you're simply wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one and AoS being a well-designed game.

Yes, AoS features 2 players where one of them may be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game.

No, that doesn't mean that it must be a competitive game.

Yes it does, because it's the definition of what makes a game competitive. The cooperative vs. competitive division is a fundamental concept of game design, and AoS is indisputably a competitive game. It has two (or more) players trying to defeat each other, not two (or more) players working together to defeat the game. Whether or not you care strongly about winning a game of AoS it's still a competitive game, and it still has all the properties of one.

On the Original Topic:

No

I hope they and any other game company currently in business stays in business.

Well said.

Why would anyone want a company that has given us over 25 years of fun, entertainment and ultimately friendships to fail?

Because their marketing strategy is a bit bizarre and some of their rules arent as tight?

Some seriously reflective perspective needed in this thread.

 Ratius wrote:
Why would anyone want a company that has given us over 25 years of fun, entertainment and ultimately friendships to fail?

Because then (hopefully) the IP will go to a company that isn't run by incompetent morons and we'll get a much better game for the next 25 years.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's not true at all. I accept that there are profitable markets that enjoy things that I don't. For example, I have a lot of problems with WM/H and would never play the game, but it's very obviously successful at marketing to its target audience and making a lot of money. My problem with AoS is not a failure to understand differing viewpoints, it's that I think you're simply wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one and AoS being a well-designed game.

In your posts, you're very black-or-white. For example, on another topic, you would take a position like, "all models must be painted, because there is no other reason to play 40k" (or some such). There are just no levels of grey, or recognition that other people might differ from you -- or at least, acceptance of the possibility of such. It's not really a criticism, more an observation.

If you had said initially that your problem with AoS is that you think I'm wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one, I would agree with you and say that we're not far apart at all on that. I mean, read back. How many times have I said, "I don't know if this is a viable market" (not necessarily in exactly those words, but pretty close). But I do concede that market exists, and I don't know it's size. And I've said that AoS at best gets me -- a pretty big 40k fan -- to buy only a tiny bit more Fantasy stuff than I otherwise would have.

I likewise have no issue with you thinking AoS being a poorly designed game. I also don't think it's the right game for me. But it is fun for me, and some people seem to like it quite a lot more than I do. Again, it's just shades of grey stead of stark, "next superstar game" versus "abject failure worth nothing".

I'm totally open to the idea that AoS will be a short term fad, people (gamers, modelers, and collectors) will get bored, and in a couple of years be buying as little or less than they do of Fantasy today. It's just not a foregone conclusion, and I think AoS has a chance for success.

Yes it does, because it's the definition of what makes a game competitive. The cooperative vs. competitive division is a fundamental concept of game design, and AoS is indisputably a competitive game. It has two (or more) players trying to defeat each other, not two (or more) players working together to defeat the game. Whether or not you care strongly about winning a game of AoS it's still a competitive game, and it still has all the properties of one.

Well, I gave you an example of tennis. You keep score, but often, where there's great disparity, the better player doesn't play to win, because otherwise he or she would win every single game (and likely, every single point). Another example is chess. Where there is great disparity, it's pointless for the better player to play to win, because even with severe handicaps (say, remove one each of rook, bishop, and knight), a brilliant/ranked player will destroy a neophyte or casual player in as many games as they play. So they play for other reasons -- like, they enjoy each other, because the weaker player wants to improve, or whatever. You also get the dynamic of adult/child games, where the adult lets the child win, because winning is more important to the child than to the adult.

None of which may apply to AoS, or perhaps they do. Again, my point, as I said to Azrael, is that there do exist some players who will happily work with their opponent (competitor, if you will) before the game to cooperatively build a game scenario, and, are more likely to disadvantage themselves than to advantage themselves. I know that when I build 40k scenarios, I'm always worried about giving myself the upper hand, and usually shortchange myself. So even though I *like* points and competitive listbuilding, and trying to create an edge using points and lists, I totally understand the dynamic of building an enjoyable competitive scenario in a cooperative and constructive way, either with my opponent or by myself.

And they might get sold to a company that lets them implode completely - do you enjoy GWs games on any single level Pere? thats not a loaded question.

It simply implies if they died, would you be happy with some sort of psuedo replacement?

I wouldnt. I like/really like playing 40k - over 2nd-7th ed.
Its not perfect but feth it, its still fun.

 Ratius wrote:
And they might get sold to a company that lets them implode completely

It would be very, very difficult for anyone to do a worse job than GW. And "implosion" is the likely result if GW continues to own the IP. So really, what do we have to lose?

do you enjoy GWs games on any single level Pere?

The games? Hell no. They're terrible in pretty much every way, and the only reason I play them at all is to use the fluff and models that I love.

It simply implies if they died, would you be happy with some sort of psuedo replacement?

Perfectly happy, as long as they don't touch the fluff or the (good) models. If the new IP owner scraps the entire 40k game and makes a new one from scratch it would almost certainly be a major improvement, and I wouldn't miss GW's version of 40k at all.

Ok, we agree to disagree.

I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

I'm the first to agree that 40k has TONS of flaws, and sometimes poor or ambiguous rules -- though the latter has been getting better in the last few years. If the game weren't fun to play, I'd have a problem with that, but it is fun to play; in fact, I find it more fun to play than games with rules that seem better on paper. Maybe it's just the models, who knows. I just have a good time.

Now, Azrael and Peregrine have both accused me of having "low standards" at one point or another.

I'd argue that it's actually, "different priorities", because seemingly great rules aren't always that much fun to play, and at the end of the day, I'd rather spend my time playing a game with terrible rules that was fun, than a game with bulletproof, apparently perfect rules that wasn't fun. Since what's fun and is both subjective and contextual (eg, who am I playing with?), "what makes a tabletop game fun to play" is just really hard to answer.

All I can say is that 40k is really fun to play -- flaws and all -- and it's not because I'll play anything you stick in front of me. After all, I never could get into Fantasy Battle, even though I was pretty sure that on paper, I liked its rules better. Like I said, who knows, it could be as simple as the people I play with, or that I identify better with the factions. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't help me to try to figure it out.

We could be here all night Tal, with the back n forth....

Im with you but....hey lets grab a beer and play what makes us happy.......... night night

I think this post has highlighted a common problem with GW not communicating with the customer base in a meaningful way.

There are lots of people who are happy with the value for money that GW plc give them in GW plcs product range.
And so they are happy with what GW plc sell them, and that is great.

However, there are lots of other people who would like to enjoy GW plc products , because they enjoyed them in the past at some point.
But GW plc are not offering them the value for money they used to.

If the people who find enough value in the art and narrative of GW games were enough to sustain GW plc. Then GW would not have suffered falling sales volumes for the last decade.
This has led GW plc to increase retail prices and the amount cost cutting to try to sustain profit,which they have since failed to do.

The people who still find value in GW plc products are either not caring , or willfully ignoring the problems that are putting the company that make their favorite products in decline.

If GW plc actually wrote rules focusing on quality game play* , that would promote long term interest in GW games and GW game players.
(* Rules written with professional levels of proof reading and editing. to result in enough clarity, to prevent mis-interpritation..And enough balance to support fun random pick up games.)
This would be all that would be needed to get MORE people to enjoy GW plc products.

I know some people say that GW plc sell enough not to bother with actual game development.But I do not think that is going to be true for very much longer.

If GW plc communicated in a meaningful way , they could make it absolutely clear what their long term plans are, and how they intend their products to be used.
And this would reduce the ' horrible mess of hope and wishful thinking taking on disillusionment and resentment ,' we currently have,

Their lack of communication , simply divides the customers base into those that are happy with current value for money and those that are not.
And the resultant 'dis agreements' is just giving GW plc such a negative vibe.(And the GW corporate legal team have made it much worse. )

If GW plc just made a bit more effort to communicate with customers, and produce rule sets that are of similar high quality to others currently available.
I am sure this would be enough to turn things around.

Writing rules for people who do not play or who think the rules are not all that important.

Is on the same level as making a commitment for producing minatures just good enough for people who use them as game counters , or just use the bases for tiddly winks.

If it was the other way round...
If your box of GW plc minatures just included bases, and some wire frames and modeling clay and some sculptiing tools.

And all you could make was a blobby mess...Yet other people with years of experience and skill could create sculpts that was good if not better than what was on the box lid.

How would you feel if the company said , other people get great results you are just doing it wrong?

You point out other companies are producing finely detailed minatures that are a joy to assemble and paint.And the people who can sculpt , just call you 'haterz.'

How happy would you be, as GW plc lost sales volumes, customers and profits.....?

I have been trying to get the white dwarf with the free mini to check it out, but to no avail, I will be giving this box set a miss, not really liking this new faction at all and the only chance they had to get me on board ( me checking the mini out via WD )they missed out on due to limited numbers of this gakky magazine, cant believe it even sold out online.

Sometimes i really can sympathise with the GW haters, the stupid fething company really does not do themselves any favours.

Not realy, I got into wargaming through 40K and I do like the games and products from Workshop. I want GW to improve but at the moment, it's looking bad for them. Every time the prices go up I just think about what Prodos do with Warzone miniatures; 3D printed, good quality, well detailed and a box of 5 is £13 and are about the same size as a normal 40K miniature. If GW did that, all would be fine and it can be done on the scale that GW would require as well.

Slothenstein wrote:
Not realy, I got into wargaming through 40K and I do like the games and products from Workshop. I want GW to improve but at the moment, it's looking bad for them. Every time the prices go up I just think about what Prodos do with Warzone miniatures; 3D printed, good quality, well detailed and a box of 5 is £13 and are about the same size as a normal 40K miniature. If GW did that, all would be fine and it can be done on the scale that GW would require as well.

That's cherry picking, though. Sure, they have a box that's about $20-ish for 5 miniatures, but they also have boxes of 3 minis for the same price, and a solo for $20 too. And, their AvP box set is $120, with way, way less miniatures than Sigmar (or Dark Vengeance).

Prodos' miniatures are cool, but they have so few miniatures that if I bought into them, I'd literally finish painting everything they ever produced (to a decent standard) in 2 weeks :X

Dreamforge is really in the same boat, but they've got a little more stuff -- they're basically at the stage where the collection is big enough that I will buy their models. I think that DF's is the the minimum collection size for me.

What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

RoninXiC wrote:
What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

Talys apparently buys tens of thousands- just to have, and with a minority that ever get painted, and from what I read, considers that scale of purchasing as fairly normal.

For you or me, the new infinity releases or warmachine releases are more than enough to keep up with and get painted. Not so for our Canadian friend...

It is interesting that he says using Prodos as an example is cherry picking, then goes on to use his own very personal and outlying circumstances to support his argument....

Well said Lanrak!

Is it a bad thing that I never so much hope that GW goes under than just after I have read a post that... uses extreme measures... to try to defend GW's practices?

The Auld Grump

Deadnight wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

Talys apparently buys tens of thousands- just to have, and with a minority that ever get painted, and from what I read, considers that scale of purchasing as fairly normal.

For you or me, the new infinity releases or warmachine releases are more than enough to keep up with and get painted. Not so for our Canadian friend...

I was inarticulate, and did not say what I mean. I'm sorry.

Yes, Prodos has a bunch of miniatures. However, pick a faction in Warzone. In that faction, there are very few models. They are eminently paintable in a short period of time. And, within most of their factions, there are a lot of models that, in my opinion, are at best average and expensive, and a few models that are great.

For example, this model is $15; you can just buy a Reaper mini for a third of the price (or less) as a solo; it is not remotely comparable to the complexity of an AoS model -


There are a lot of models like this, which I just don't think are anything special (nor are they particularly cheap):


There is not a single model from Prodos' range that is within the order of magnitude of complexity of the angels or the mounted hero from the Age of Sigmar box. If you think there is, show me, and I'll take it back.

From Privateer Press or Games Workshop, you can just do a lot better -- in my opinion. There are a small number of Prodos models that I really like, but not enough models that I would consider modelling Warzone. And none of the factions are complete enough for me to consider modelling it, either. In comparison to, for example, Menoth, Cyngar, Retribution. There are no big, cool models that drive me to it, either, such as Dreamforge.

To my other point: $22 / 5 minis, or $4.40 per miniature, is not the median price of Prodos infantry kits. This is the median price of their troops. And it's not much different from Games Workshop, which charges about $40-$50 for a box of 10 troops.

Prodos Heroes are about $15-$20, which is cheaper than Games Workshop and Privateer Press. But I would argue that the vast majority are not really that great. A few, like their new Alakhai Ascendant, look awesome.

And by the way, in the last few years, I've painted about 400 minis a year, on average. If you don't believe me, just look at my Gallery; about 100 photos of unique models uploaded since last August, and obviously, I don't photograph or upload everything I paint (who wants to see the other 59 tactical marines for the full Company). I own in the order of magnitude of about 5,000 painted miniatures, collected since the 80s (It could actually be higher, I dunno; that's just a guess. I couldn't even tell you how many miniature carrying cases I have.). I spend MUCH more time when I paint GW minis than I do when I paint other ones. I don't know why, but I can paint 30 Menoth in 1 week and be happy with it, but I'll be lucky if I finish 1 tactical squad in the same time, and a hero could take me several days.

Yes, I have a very large collection of unpainted minis BNIB and neatly organized on shelves like you would see in a hobby shop. I happen to have worked hard, and made some money, and miniatures and wargaming are where I like to spend my money. I am unapologetic about it.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Is it a bad thing that I never so much hope that GW goes under than just after I have read a post that... uses extreme measures... to try to defend GW's practices?

The Auld Grump

Not really. Some of the "white knighting" can really grate sometimes.
I speak as someone who doesn't hate GW as much as many do but are aware of their faults, seeing people brush off legit issues like the IP bullying, rule screwups and so on has me all like

And seeing people stand up for the really bad stuff can make one a lot more adamant on seeing it gone.

@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spots the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

Most of the companies that I buy things from that I like do things that I don't like, but it doesn't make me stop buying their products. A very small list of examples would include Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Exxon, Hewlett Packard, British Petroleum, Chevrolet, Pfizer, Jonson & Jonson, Sony, and Monsanto.

It's not that I hold Games Workshop to a lower standard because I like their products; it's that I hold them to the same standard as any other company. At some point, if they do something horrible, like hire children in Bangladesh to press miniatures and those children die in a fire because of poor safety conditions, I'll boycott their goods. But a dumb lawsuit over perceived IP infringement? If that was the standard by which I boycotted product, I would not be able to purchase an electronic device.

Heck, I still buy Apple products, and Foxconn regularly has workers who make iPads in slave labor conditions that hurl themselves off of buildings to commit suicide, because they just can't take it anymore. I still eat shrimp and halibut even though commercial fishing nets are killing whales (which I adore) in a horrible way when they get tangled in them. I still have hamburgers and scrambled eggs even though cows and chickens are often treated in a very inhumane way.

The threshold for boycotting a product has become very high, because so much of what is done to produce goods that first world nations consume is highly unethical. Since I choose to live in this world rather than be an activist about... everything... I just have to accept that this is the world that we live in, and is driven by our desire to have nice things for low prices.

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

Wouldn't you still have fun with it if the game wasn't crap, though? Or are you saying it's only fun because it's crap?

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

Oh, for sure. There are people who have tried defending things that make no sense to defend -- and why do so anyhow. On this we agree


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

Wouldn't you still have fun with it if the game wasn't crap, though? Or are you saying it's only fun because it's crap?

He's saying the game isn't crap, and he enjoys it. He might enjoy it more if it were better, sure. And there isn't something else he enjoys more (which, in relative terms, makes other things more crappy -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

A product with flaws isn't a crappy product. Just like every person has flaws, but they aren't terrible people (otherwise nobody would ever get married, right?). You gotta take the good with the bad, and it can always get better. Just choose what you like the most, and it's fine if it's not what others like.

Essentially the same boat as me.

 Talys wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

Oh, for sure. There are people who have tried defending things that make no sense to defend -- and why do so anyhow. On this we agree

For the record - I mostly disagree with you, but you seldom raise my hackles.

The specific offending post was not yours, and was not even in this thread.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
For the record - I mostly disagree with you, but you seldom raise my hackles.

The specific offending post was not yours, and was not even in this thread.

The Auld Grump

Oh, okay -- thanks. Good to know!

Likewise to you, man. I'm happy to read differing views. If I weren't I wouldn't come here

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

@Crash: so how about some examples of where people are being a twit, if you want an admission of it???
it would be interesting to see what fits your definition...

cheers
jah

 Peregrine wrote:

Sheck2 wrote:
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

And GW going bankrupt and losing the IP to WOTC/FFG/etc would produce a better product.

As a GW shareholder, I agree with this sentiment. Except the WoTC part. 4th Edition D&D was an abomination.


And,bluntly, yes, you are buying their corporate behavior when you buy their products. If you don't like what a company does, do not buy their products.