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.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW Community Manager?

Right!?

Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.

If I could be assured that I would be in a position to at least have anything that was a consistent issue be addressed or a well reasoned answer as to why it wasn't viable, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

But that would never happen.

Alpharius wrote:At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?

I'm not sure what you think my position is -- but to be clear, I don't think GW is the best company or best stock in the world. I do think it's profitable, an industry leader, and makes a product that I like at a price that I can afford. I am obviously not alone in this; as much as I spend on wargaming, it's not GBP 100m.

My positions are easily mutable, except that I won't change my opinion that I enjoy GW models and games (because I do), and I won't accept silly absolutist positions such as "GW is unintelligent". I'm perfectly willing to move on most reasonable things, such as observable and measurable technical superiority, how to best attract new players, how to reinvigorate old players, and that sort of thing. I'm totally willing to listen to what are issues for other people.

Azreal13 wrote:At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!

Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW. In addition to that, I'm pretty agreeable with and open-minded to folks who aren't explicitly out there just to bash GW.

I don't love everything about GW; far from it. I wish the faction that I'm spending at least $5,000 on right now (Blood Angels -- and the final tally will probably be twice that) didn't suck so badly, and it makes no sense that they'd print a codex that's so uncompetitive with the one printed a month later (Necron). But I think they make cool stuff and that many of the online criticisms are hyperbole from disaffected customers. When I have spare time, I don't mind taking up the position and standing up for something I genuinely enjoy, especially since there seem to be a few people who say something negative about GW whenever there's an opportunity to do so.

If you wish to bash GW, that's certainly your prerogative, and likewise, it is mine to write reasoned opposition to it (as it is HBMC's to write snarky commentary!). You may note that on occasion, I have agreed with you -- just not on the stuff like "GW is unintelligent"

 AegisGrimm wrote:
They know perfectly well how many figures they can sell at the expense they put them at. I think we all have to admit that those of us surprised at their prices are not the ones making them all their money.

We are the minority, the majority are the ones buying droves of 25-30 dollar (US) clampack plastic figures and 50 dollar 5-man sets that are essentially monopose figures that honestly are without a whole heckuva lot of detail for this day and age.

I'd happily join that majority of there were a decent game to use the models in.

Totally.

Hanging out on the Spartan forums (or reading anything about them) just leaves you wondering what GW is even doing. Spartan is a fraction of a fraction the size of GW, and yet they already understand the concept of interacting with and assuaging or answering any fears or concerns of upcoming products. It may not always be what people want to hear, but at least now they're informed, which I'm almost 100% certain is better than being angry and not knowing the reasons why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.

Why?

In case Talys missed it for the...fourth time? Fifth?

 Talys wrote:

Spoiler:

Alpharius wrote:At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?

I'm not sure what you think my position is -- but to be clear, I don't think GW is the best company or best stock in the world. I do think it's profitable, an industry leader, and makes a product that I like at a price that I can afford. I am obviously not alone in this; as much as I spend on wargaming, it's not GBP 100m.

My positions are easily mutable, except that I won't change my opinion that I enjoy GW models and games (because I do), and I won't accept silly absolutist positions such as "GW is unintelligent". I'm perfectly willing to move on most reasonable things, such as observable and measurable technical superiority, how to best attract new players, how to reinvigorate old players, and that sort of thing.

Azreal13 wrote:At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!

Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW.

I don't love everything about GW; far from it. But I think they make cool stuff and that many of the online criticisms are hyperbole from disaffected customers. When I have spare time, I don't mind taking up the position and standing up for something I genuinely enjoy, especially since there seem to be a few people who say something negative about GW whenever there's an opportunity to do so.

What, you think you're Spartacus?

Other people send other users very different messages.

Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?

Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.

*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.

 Talys wrote:


Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW.

Wait...what?!?

Is this really happening - or is that 'perhaps' there to suggest that maybe that's not actually happening?

 Blacksails wrote:
Totally.

Hanging out on the Spartan forums (or reading anything about them) just leaves you wondering what GW is even doing. Spartan is a fraction of a fraction the size of GW, and yet they already understand the concept of interacting with and assuaging or answering any fears or concerns of upcoming products. It may not always be what people want to hear, but at least now they're informed, which I'm almost 100% certain is better than being angry and not knowing the reasons why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.

Why?

In case Talys missed it for the...fourth time? Fifth?

I don't think he missed it. I think he's willfully ignoring it because he made a bad statement that he can't back up. Don't hold your breath on a response.

In the case of Everyone vs. Talys, I find in favor of Everyone. Court of Dakka adjourned. Everyone wearing a white floured wig is awarded the "no contempt of court" award.

Azreal13 wrote:I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.

AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.

What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.

1. There are MANY such companies, especially in the luxury goods business. Pick any number of watch, jewelry, footwear, or apparel companies. You're not going to see a $30 pair of Jimmy Choo's or Milano Blaihnik's, regardless of how many millions of pairs they'd sell. I assure you of this.

2. AoS is a huge risk. Do you know how much it costs to make all those miniatures? It's not just Sigmarites; there are a ton of books and investments into Other factions too. Ripping off WMH would have been low-risk.

3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced). I've said this before: GW does extraordinary things for people it feels are its core customers, and absolutely nothing for people that it feels aren't. Not that they're unhappy to take anyone's money.

Blacksails wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW Community Manager?

Right!?

Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.

I believe that this is a reason that AoS attempts to reach non-traditional wargamers. They don't have a tainted view of GW because they haven't been GW customers before. They're not offended by GW's prices, because they've never experienced cheap GW models. And because nobody else has a product like AoS -- explicitly non-competitive, ultra cooperative setup, hyper-pro-casual, etc -- it's not like there's any competition in this microniche.

I can tell you that the people I know who are playing it regularly absolutely love the game. I don't think they'll be big model buyers, though I think they will buy an awful lot of the books.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread so either Talys does too, or actually starts addressing other people's counters.

'Hyper-pro-casual'?

 Blacksails wrote:
Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.

This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.

I think that the one of the goals of AoS is to attract the non-competitive (even, non-wargaming) community by making the game unattractive to the competitive crowd. The likelihood of meeting TFG is pretty low, because that TFG is never going to have anyone to play against, at least more than once. In addition, I think that by making such a striking statement as, "No Points", people talk about it -- and the people who are so inclined will give it a chance.

It really doesn't matter who doesn't like your game, as long as there are enough people who do, and those people loyally buy your products.

By the way, AoS meets most of your criteria: the rules are certainly clear and simple; and whether it offers meaningful and deep player involvement is answered differently by different people. When you look in the AoS GD forum, there are clearly people who love the game, and it's not because it comes down to just 2 people rolling dice against each other.

Some of the things people don't like: there is no element of list surprise, it makes a poor game for winning by ambush, it is antithetical to getting efficiency out of a list, it's poor for meeting a stranger to play at a predetermined army size, and it's poor for tournaments. The thing is, all of those things make some people happy.

 Talys wrote:
3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced).

I've never heard either expression before.

"Preaching to the Choir" means preaching to people who already agree with you. "Singing to the Choir" sounds like a pastor who is singing over the choir while the choir stands around thinking "err, dude, aren't we the ones who are supposed to be singing". "Pleasing the choir" sounds like a bad joke about priests and sexual assault.

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.

AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.

What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.

1. There are MANY such companies, especially in the luxury goods business. Pick any number of watch, jewelry, footwear, or apparel companies. You're not going to see a $30 pair of Jimmy Choo's or Milano Blaihnik's, regardless of how many millions of pairs they'd sell. I assure you of this.

GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?

2. AoS is a huge risk. Do you know how much it costs to make all those miniatures?

Yep, about 20% of RRP.

It's not just Sigmarites; there are a ton of books and investments into Other factions too. Ripping off WMH would have been low-risk.

Yes, and all likely to sell enough to recoup their development costs.

3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced). I've said this before: GW does extraordinary things for people it feels are its core customers, and absolutely nothing for people that it feels aren't. Not that they're unhappy to take anyone's money.

You're mx img it's all up with "preaching to the choir" I think, meaning continuing to try and persuade people who already agree with you? Might I suggest "pandering to the fanboys?"

 Alpharius wrote:
'Hyper-pro-casual'?

By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.

There's probably a fething good reason for that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?

GW products are luxury goods. Under practically every meaningful definition of luxury goods. It certainly isn't a necessity, and is something that can make some people happy if they happen to have the money to buy the stuff (and want it).

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/luxury-goods.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're mx img it's all up with "preaching to the choir" I think, meaning continuing to try and persuade people who already agree with you? Might I suggest "pandering to the fanboys?"

If you prefer, GW panders to its biggest fans -- who happen to be its biggest or most profitable customers, or at least, they think so.

I'll avoid using "fanboy" simply because of its negative connotations, and use "superfan" instead. But that's exactly it, and I've said this a hundred times on these forums -- and also that, were I in charge, I would aim for more inclusivity.

 Talys wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
'Hyper-pro-casual'?

By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.

I...


...love it!

I think you came up with "Super-Fan" too...in terms of GW's new 'target'?

TFG is not limited to competitive play, not in the slightest.

It does matter who doesn't like your product because you can learn why, and figure out how to include them as well.

The rules are simple, but they swung too far and still have the classic GW incompleteness and confusion. X-wing is as simple, but is also tournament ready and offers rewarding tactical play.

AoS does not.

AoS does two things well, compared to other and previous GW games. It's simpler and cheap. Other than that, it's not good for narrative gaming, useless for competitive gaming, has no backbone to build a campaign from, and any additional (and mediocre) rules content will be behind an expensive pay wall, this negating it's advantage of being cheap (excluding models, but we all know GW is expensive there).

I can't understand how someone is happier playing a game that excludes other play styles or doesn't cater to a certain method of play. It's ridiculous. In any game ever you are free to pick and choose your opponent, so it'd only be logical to want to play a game with the largest pool to choose from.

Honestly how does a game being poor for tournaments act as a selling point for anyone. No one has ever browsed a game and said "I like everything about this game, but some people I'll never play with use it for tournaments. That's not acceptable. Pass."

I don't think AOS is for non competitive players, I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play. They don't want to agonize over every move and think strategies several turns in advance.

That just happens to be the opposite of what I want. I'm not a tournament going guy. Never been to one. It's the story that's most important to me.

But I need a good game that reflects the fluff behind it.

I don't think GW knows its player base or why people buy what they buy.
Not doing market research is unintelligent.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
'Hyper-pro-casual'?

By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.

I...


...love it!

I think you came up with "Super-Fan" too...in terms of GW's new 'target'?

I don't think I can take credit for "superfan" I saw it and just liked it. But -- I genuinely think that GW organizes its entire production/release/pricing schedule on the basis of, "what would make our best customers happiest?" rather than other metrics like, growing the number of fans, the community, and all that.

Taking the cynical approach, I would say that I suspect that there is some pricing analyst fella there who says, "this is the most profitable route". Taking the non-cynical approach, the GW bunch genuinely seem like a bunch of guys who like dioramas, painting, modeling, causal gaming, over-the-top weapons and heroes and villains, "herohammer" and all that -- and their biggest fans & spenders seem to like that too, so they say, "why not, let's make them happy?"

In the past, I've argued that the prices have gone up in part because they recognize that, in order to make the superfan happy, they know they will lose some other customers, and therefore, the superfan must pay more for the product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't understand how someone is happier playing a game that excludes other play styles or doesn't cater to a certain method of play. It's ridiculous. In any game ever you are free to pick and choose your opponent, so it'd only be logical to want to play a game with the largest pool to choose from.

Honestly how does a game being poor for tournaments act as a selling point for anyone. No one has ever browsed a game and said "I like everything about this game, but some people I'll never play with use it for tournaments. That's not acceptable. Pass."

Well, I don't feel this way, and I don't want to speak for other people -- so just look on the AoS GD threads. There are plenty of people who are attracted by AoS's balancing system being, "hey guys, you two figure out a fair game cooperatively".

There are also people who feel that points are "destined to fail" from the perspective that it's just a race to list efficiency and that's not what they want to engage in. By being exclusionary, you can pretty much guarantee that if you play AoS, and you meet someone else who is playing AoS, they also don't care about points and want to figure out a game in a cooperative way -- since, really, that's the only way to play it at the moment

The obvious counterargument is, you might have a very small pool of people to play with. But is that preferable to having a large pool of people, and having to sift through the ones who you may or may not want to play with? I'm not going to answer that, because (a) I'm not a fan of the AoS system and (b) I pretty much play with the same 5 other people all the time anyways, and they are about as like-minded in the hobby as people could be.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?

GW products are luxury goods. Under practically every meaningful definition of luxury goods. It certainly isn't a necessity, and is something that can make some people happy if they happen to have the money to buy the stuff (and want it).

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/luxury-goods.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

 Azreal13 wrote:
GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?

I do not need GW products to live, technically they make my life nicer if I buy them (although right now a healthy does of buyers remorse is likely for more than a few pots of paint.) They are definitely something more popular in developed countries where there is a higher per capita proportion of disposable income.

But, they are readily accessible, not particularly expensive in the grand scheme (whether you consider them overpriced or not) and don't intrinsically offer anything that other models do not (and please, no "but I only like Space Marines" comebacks, one stick together army man is essentially the same as any other.)

As I said, by the strict economic definition they're luxury goods, but I don't consider something even I, on currently a very modest income, can go into a shop in essentially any town and purchase, and for that thing not to even necessarily be the most superior example of its kind, to be in any way luxurious in a wider sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trying to force your product into a niche it doesn't naturally occupy is unintelligent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW is Walmart, but they think they're Whole Foods

(Is that the right analogy? Out of my cultural knowledge zone here!)

Talys, as long as you agree that those reasons are ridiculous, I'm happy.

Probably the weirdest justifications I've ever read for a product.

Anyways, you never answered my 'why' question. Or my lighter one about you getting PMs. Inquiring minds want to know.

 Talys wrote:
But -- I genuinely think that GW organizes its entire production/release/pricing schedule on the basis of, "what would make our best customers happiest?" rather than other metrics like, growing the number of fans, the community, and all that.

In the past, I've argued that the prices have gone up in part because they recognize that, in order to make the superfan happy, they know they will lose some other customers, and therefore, the superfan must pay more for the product.

If you're right, it would certainly go a ways towards towards explaining the recent trend of stagnation and shrinking sales - and it would seem to be something that cannot continue if GW wants to continue!

@Blacksails - you just posted while I was posting, so I didn't see your post

What is the question about PMs? I couldn't find it. And sorry, I will look for the question when I get back. I must go seek sustenance now (rather, wife has delicious smelling dinner cooking and my nose is directing me that way)

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.

Why?

I've actually answered this question (more than once), but here's the short version:

1. Smaller scale = less models = less revenue = less profit. GW wants you to own a collection of thousands of miniatures, not game with 30

2. Part of the attraction of 40k (to people like me) is that there is everything from grots to jets to titans in the same game. But that's terrible for balance. I see it. But I don't care. I like it. I would love to see a Reaver titan in a game, dying for my buddy to put his together; I don't care if it is totally unbalanced (or not). It's just cool.

3. Better internal balance = less scrambling after whatever the new meta is. That means less buying new models. GW switches up the rules every few years, presumably by fans and non-fans alike, so that you end up buying everything.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?

Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.

*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.

i don't know about anyone else, but i am not here to "stand up" for GW as a corporation, only to stand up for my freedom to enjoy GW's books and models without being called simple-minded, a sucker, a sheeple, or a fanboy...
when someone conceeds that they are a fan of miniatures in general, but that GW miniatures are their favorite, that is not "fan-boyism", it is simply a matter of taste...
telling me that i can buy something completely different for a lower price is not helpful...
telling me that i am a fool for wanting the GW aesthetic, when there is nothing that looks the same for that lower price, is not helpful...
at the end of the day, as Talys has said many times, the behavior of management, and the high prices are not significant enough to turn us away as customers, because they produce a product that we want...

people keep saying GW makes unintelligent choices...
going by my reading of the forums, if GW tried to please everyone, they would be so busy chasing all of the different ideas that each individual has of their perfect product that they would never acomplish anything...
all of the conflicting opinions would lead to an inability to make one choice...
when one choice has to be made, you are inevitably going to alienate some of your potential customer base...
what inspires each person is going to vary, and there is nothing wrong with that...
GW has chosen to make a certain segment happy, and the other companies out there have picked up the ones that don't feel catered to by GW...

honestly, i don't see the competition as a bad thing for the market, but we will have to see if it makes GW unprofitable in 5 or 6 years time...
it certainly hasn't yet...
there is more choice than ever, and more ways for people to get exactly what will make them happy...
with the advent of Kickstarter, and other means of crowdfunding, as well as the easier learning curve with digital sculpting, it is not a surprise that the market has grown more diverse...
with an immensely larger amount of games and minis to choose from coming along each year, is it any surprise that GW is losing a couple of million in profit each year???


@Blacksails: i have also received PMs for standing up for what i believe, by people who didn't want to get attacked for posting their position...
not only here on Dakka, but on other forums as well, and not just recently, but for years...
it really isn't that strange...

cheers
jah

 Alpharius wrote:
If you're right, it would certainly go a ways towards towards explaining the recent trend of stagnation and shrinking sales - and it would seem to be something that cannot continue if GW wants to continue!

Well, I've said many-a-time that I could be full of it too It's just my hypothesis, postulating by a guy who is semi-retired and has too much time on his hands now. Who knows.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?

Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.

*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.

i don't know about anyone else, but i am not here to "stand up" for GW as a corporation, only to stand up for my freedom to enjoy GW's books and models without being called simple-minded, a sucker, a sheeple, or a fanboy...

Have you read my sig recently?

Prof Brian Cox wrote:The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

Remember that time where someone made the thread saying "Only criticsms of GW, please. I don't wanna see any positives anywhere!"

Me neither.
But I've seen several of the opposite. Funny how that works.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think AOS is for non competitive players, I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play. They don't want to agonize over every move and think strategies several turns in advance.

That just happens to be the opposite of what I want. I'm not a tournament going guy. Never been to one. It's the story that's most important to me.

But I need a good game that reflects the fluff behind it.

I don't think GW knows its player base or why people buy what they buy.
Not doing market research is unintelligent.

And as a 15 year player of WHFB (3+ armies) and 40k (5+) armies, I'd respectfully disagree on AoS. Played it with my Brets, and it "felt" like the Brets in the fluff. It included some thinking and consideration of when and when not to charge (some units work better on the defense), and the ebb and flow of the combats, the flexible movement, all felt much more natural than the square block, argue over a millimeter, let me get my protractor games of WHFB in the past (8th did some nice things for the "fiddly" in WHFB, but botched others). I play AoS more regularly than I did WHFB, and we're already making up a campaign between Empire, Orks, and Brets.

I'm not GWs target audience - I'm older, with discretionary income - but I still like their models, and games, and I still buy them. I also have 30+ sci-fi, fantasy, historical rulesets on my shelves, and keep coming back to GW for sci-fi and fantasy. The others don't scratch the itch, and none have the background and immersion I find with GW.

So, yeah, people are different, and some of us even like GWs product. Shocker I just don't post here or even lurk much anymore, because its the same old, same old GW bashing, over and over and over and over....yawn...