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.
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
That's an interesting point, indeed. How the game rules are presented are really important about what the players will perceive as how the game is intended to be played.
What I find quite strange, however, is your statement on AoS being balanced as it is, and then talking about how the players can get around to have a game balanced.
Because, in the rules, it is just presented as "bring your collection on the board and play with it". Nothing is being told about the other player's agreement. And that's what some people here actually read. So, when you're saying AoS is intended to be played between reasonnable players who agree about what is fair and what is not...I believe it is more an interpretation about how you can play AoS.
I think it's the same than before; there are many ways to play AoS and the way you play it is just one of them.
Also, I find AoS has a "special treatment" because it has the GW/Warhammer brand on it. It is especially more true when you know the people who are behind it and still talk to them; you can't be totally objective when you are emotionnaly involved with the subject.
I don't think the game wouldn't have been treated the same if it was from another, unknown company and made by total stranger game designers. And I believe it isn't a question of background - you could have something with a rich story and a lot of details put there at the beginning, if you don't know the people behind, it wouldn't be the same if you growed up within a set universe for many years. And also know personally the designers.
Nothing precludes tabletop wargames from telling stories the same way RPGs do.
Nothing stops people from playing RPGs as a non-story telling device and as a series of mini tabletop competitive encounters where the goal is to win the encounter everytime.
I used to help organize and run D&D tournaments "back in the day" and the goal of those was to win.
They are just tools that can be used in multitudes of ways.
I was under the impression that the gamers who bend rules, fudge rolls, play your turns for you, use rules differently for themselves than for others, and pick fights were TFG. And yeah, I imagine having judges there would prevent them from getting away with that sort of stuff.
That is TFG, which is synonymous with WAAC. And TFGs are in all walks of life, and are not synonymous with your derogatory ‘tournament players’.
WAACers are gamers who will go to tournaments with a cheese heavy list they downloaded from the internet,
Remember, there is nothing wrong with ‘hard lists’, especially in the context of a tournament. ‘cheese’ as well is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen people post on dakka calling people out as ‘cheesy’ for putting their marines in rhinos. So No. Again, you are being prejudiced and downright narrow minded. WAACers are gamers who will shamelessly take that same cheese heavy list to any format - casual play in particular, and will noobstalk, and bend, twist, bully, hassle, distract, intimidate or cheat their way to a win. Hence ‘win at all costs’.
One of the Waac players I know (and refuse to play) plays WMH and only rarely goes to tournaments. All of a sudden, all of his Douchery comes to nought because he meets people that are fully up on the rules and won't stand for his antics. So he trolls the more casual gaming nights and often goes without games as a result, because most people have learned what to expect. The few that he does get in end up being a joke. If he sees your list, he will deliberately hard counter and net deck you. If he sees your list, he will try to set up all the board terrain to his sole advantage. He goes after noobs, and goes all out. And this is on casual game nights too, mind...
WAAC is an attitude that is certainly not exclusive to ‘tournament play’. Now let’s be fair- WAACs will certainly go to tournaments (as will casual players, competitive players, and everything in between*) But they will certainly go everywhere else there is gaming as well, and especially to places where they can get easy wins. WAAC players will play at home, in shops, in clubs, in leagues and especially in casual play. You can find them across the table from you in any setting with any gaming format. Don’t assume that WAAC and tournament play are in league. WAAC is an attitude that is not exclusive to ‘gaming format’.
*I know a lot of gamers with other life commitments (family especially, jobs, other time consuming hobbies - in my case, long distance running commitments) for whom tournaments are simply the best way to ‘max out’ your gaming time, and get lots of games in a minimum of time with a minimum of fuss.
buying six dozen of the same unit to exploit loopholes in the rules,
Well, if the rules don’t have things like unit caps, then how is it a loophole? That’s a cop out. You also ignore the possibility that taking six dozen of something is simply a part of a themed army. And heaven forbid you are a guard or tyranid player where six dozen guardsmen or gaunts is one unit.
And again, this is not a tournament thing – WAAC players will exploit these same loopholes in the rules in the most casual and inappropriate settings too. If anything, they will prefer the latter.
using hyper-literal interpretations of the rules that run counter to the spirit in which they were written,
WAAC players thrive on loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rule terminology. The ‘grey areas’ in a game. What you refer to here is a conflict between RAW (rules as written) and RAI (rules as intended) which is nothing more than the consequence of shoddy game design, and those same loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rules and a lack of clear, watertight writing. Talking about ‘spirit’ in particular is a catch-all copout. Which is the typical state of GW games in particular and why they in particular are so open to abuse in every format. In games like WMH, there is no RAI. The rules are strictly RAW, and do and mean precisely what they say. WAAC players have no room to manoeuvre. There are no ‘hyper-literal interpretations counter to the spirit of the game’. There are the rules, plain and simple.
And again, WAAC players will do this in the most casual and inappropriate settings as well.
Be careful about talking about the 'intended spirit' of the game. That's quicksand you are stepping on. Thst can very quickly boil down to an exercise in arrogance where the high and mighty smugly try and dictate to the masses 'how' to play. And thst anything else is doing it wrong. When clearly, it is more complicated than that, especially in open sandbox games like gw.
and generally minmaxing everything to such an extreme that the game becomes an open mockery of itself.
Which is again, a feature of loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rules and shoddy game design, rather than ‘tournament play’. Min maxing, for example isn’t really a feature of WMH.
WAACers are as happy to do this in a casual setting as tournaments.
They put their own victory ahead of the intended experience of the game designers (and any gamer who doesn't also subscribe to the same philosophy). Basically, if the game allows an advantage, even by accident, then they will take it without hesitation. I think they refer to such behavior as "being the better gamer".
Which, going back to your original assertion, has nothing to do with ‘going to tournaments’ and everything to do with exploiting loose, wooly, vague and poorly worded rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 19:24:38
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
As a designer, do you ever take into account what your customers might want? Do you ever check and see if different wants can be fulfilled at the same time?
A good example is I never used miniatures while running a pathfinder game because I felt they pulled players out of the game, But my friend when he ran would always use miniatures because He felt the combat was a lot more clear and concise as far as enemy placement and cover/LoS rules. Is he wrong? does the use of models encourage power gaming? does not having them encourage role playing? If my buddy wants to run a pure combat campaign and his players want that are they playing wrong? if I have an entire game night with no combat am I running a game wrong?
D&D 3.5 and pathfinder are great because they have all the full miniature rules, and I just skipped that section. However, if I was designing the rules I don't think I would jettison the miniature rules simply because I personally felt they weren't adding to "how the game should be played." if I felt players might want to try a different approach that they haven't thought of or been exposed too, I personally would communicate this different way to play with a supplement or campaign designed around my preferred style of play.
The Generals Compendium was a great example of this, it both had "forge the narrative" articles for castles, boats, unusual terrain and campaign rules, but it also had rules in it for ultra competitive play. (The grudgematch rules.)
GW's complete lack of communication means I have no idea what their intent was, but you say you're friends with a lot of them, so maybe you can shed some light on this. It just seems like they decided that there should only be one way to play, and now anyone that doesn't want to play that way isn't a "true" GW customer.
Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 14:25:44
auticus wrote: Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
Hurray for euphemisms!
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
auticus wrote: Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
I have at some point owned every fantasy army except dark elves and Bretonian. I have owned every 40k army at some point. I have played for 20 years, easily painted up well over 5000 miniatures, and have sculpted everything from giant squgoths to greater chaos dragons. I own 15,000 points of painted Orks, and have scratch built everything from battlewagons to a great gargant and a blasta-bomma. I have held painting lessons, sculpting lessons, taught people to play, and ran a game store for a few years. I have played every edition of 40k, and started fantasy in 4th edition. I have played every specialist game, and just about every white dwarf game from the original BF gothic to the dwarf bar brawl to movie marines.
I have ran and organized official GW tournaments including regional 'Ard Boyz, have ran a 48 hour Apocolypse game that was played in shifts, built close to 20 terrain sets, and once played a 13,000 point fantasy battle game with my skaven vs. high elves, all fully painted. (my Skaven alone is over 800 painted models.)
Hell, I spent a year and a half building a custom Ork Evil Sunz motorcycle which is about to get a running light upgrade and I'm making a leather banner to go on its banner pole.
How in the hell am I not the "intended" audience?!?
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks
2015/10/28 16:52:53
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
Because you obviously are a minmaxing waac who can't get over himself.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How in the hell am I not the "intended" audience?!?
The comment you are answering seems to have some missing words or grammar that is making it hard for me to decide what he was referring to.
But if we are talking about AOS then nothing you have or have done in any other game from GW of necessity makes you the intended audience in AOS. You can still be the intended audience for 40k, you can still be the intended audience for miniature collecting (but not gaming) yet not the intended audience for AOS.
Not that I know anything about the intended audience for AOS, so I can't say whether you are or are not. Equally short of asking the designer neither can anyone else including yourself.
Well I think that if their new direction is geared toward casual play, less on serious play, that the amount or non amount of miniatures purchased in the past become a non factor.
Their rules as they exist today are bent toward the casual playing audience, regardless of if they have or do not have a large collection.
I've played whfb and 40k since the mid 90s so about 20 years myself, and I own a god awful amount of plastic and metal from GW, but AoS out of the box is not for me either and nor am I the intended audience without me having to modify the rules a bit to make it more to my liking.
If you are wanting a serious game with serious competition in an environment that fosters competitive events like the magic pro circuit, then GW is definitely not for you and you are definitely not their target audience.
Thats all really. You can't design a game with open parameters and expect it to appeal to competitive players, and I think GW knows that and I think GW doesn't care.
Which pairs the issue down to a root level - a company made a game not conducive to competition, where before for over 15 - 20 years they catered almost exclusively to competition, and its player base who were drawn to the game for competitive reasons or who were after a serious ruleset as opposed to a just for funsies ruleset are now upset.
Alessio during a Q&A he linked on his facebook page has even said as much - that kings of war is written to appeal to the tournament mindset player that is upset over Games Workshop's choice to move to a more casual non competitive gameset.
Andy Chamber on his facebook was talking about Jervis and said Jervis was "a rules writing genius" and that you cannot slam Jervis for the direction GW is going in now because Jervis is working with what the company is offering for parameters, and that something something games written for non competition are an "intriguing idea" that he himself had thought about before - but indicated that he didn't think the world was ready for a non competitive ruleset after 15-20 years of that being the standard (tournament style rulesets) because none of the other companies really wanted to deal with such a negative and flame-filled backlash, even though they considered the idea worth pursuing.
Will this work for Games Workshop? That remains to be seen. AoS is a casual ruleset written for casual players that have groups they play in that can govern themselves, in a world where players expect rulesets to lay out a standard and be able to be played at a masters level.
The big whizzing contest that I've seen in a lot of places is that the sides are jockeying for position over "who is the minority". On the internet front, it would definitely seem confirmation-bias would conclude that competitive styled players are a good chunk of the majority of wargamer posters so it would seem visibly that GW made a bad decision.
But if there's one thing I know about tthe people having fun with AoS, its that most of them that I know don't participate in online groups or forums at all so their voices aren't heard.
Time will be the ultimate decider. While I have made AoS work for me through comp, and I enjoy it, my gut instinct is that swimming upstream in the internet age is likely to get you killed and unfortunately if you are not marketing a game that fits in with the mainstream, you are not going to do well. As such I feel that AoS will either experience version 2.0 in the near future with more solid army building rules, or it will go the way of the hobbit and Games Workshop will be a 40k-only company.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 17:10:35
Their rules as they exist today are bent toward the casual playing audience, regardless of if they have or do not have a large collection.
Not sure casual is the right word for it. Casuals are people who don't care and just use gaming as an excursion. Buying $80 models that require hours of assembling and painting is the exact opposite of casual. Not sure narrative gamers is the right term either.
I think it is the opposite of competitive, and that's cooperative. As in, gamers who want to cooperate on creating the best competitive experience. I guess that sounds like an oxymoron, but that's why you don't need points. You cooperative with your opponent to decide what armies you will play. I don't think middle ground like that exists in purely competitive play.
Sure - it depends on what word you want to use. I find in the wargaming community that words get used that others don't use quite often (it leads to many disagreements)
When I say casual player I am referring to a player that ultimately does not care if they win or lose, but are there for the experience, the socializing, or yes even cooperating with their opponent(s) to tell a compelling story.
2015/10/28 17:26:27
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
I honestly love hearing the praise for AoS. To be fair, I haven't actually played the game, but I have read the rules, watched it being played, etc. I like it.
My local GW shop (where I go to play) is on the way home from work. I work 8-5, and they close at 7. Earliest I could be there is probably 5:30. So, even an 800 to 1000 point 40K game would be impossible because of time constraints of setup, play, teardown. A low model/wound count game that has a setup, play, and teardown time of less than an hour is ideal for me. Unless it's Kill Team, there's not much chance that would be possible in 40K. It's very possible in AoS, though.
SG
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are correct... GW definitely does not favor the gamer.
GW is a miniatures company first and a gaming company... somewhere down the list. I'm 100% sure that if you asked someone from GW, they'd some something very similar. They are not in the business of making games. They are in the business of making and selling miniatures. They provide rulebooks and codices for people who want to play in friendly games.
If they were a gaming company, they'd have hired much better game creators/writers. Or, better yet, they would have just given the "rule writing" part of the business to WizKids or Fantasy Flight and sold under the Games Workshop label so that they could still make a good amount of money off the rulebooks and codices.
That said, look at WizKids' and Fantasy Flight's miniatures. Detail-wise, they don't even begin to touch GW. GW's miniatures are on a level of detail and quality that neither of the other companies can get near.
So, I agree that GW doesn't favor the gamer. That has never been their goal. Their goal is to sell miniatures. If creating a game that was never meant to be competitive but only played as friendly games sells more miniatures, then they are accomplishing their goal. That said, just don't ever expect GW to actually write good rules. If GW would pay WizKids or Fantasy Flight to write the rules, then we'd have something that's probably much more balanced, far more competitive, and meant for tournaments. Then again, those kinds of rules might also make some people want to walk away from the game.
SG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 20:23:02
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
ServiceGames wrote: If GW would pay WizKids or Fantasy Flight to write the rules, then we'd have something that's probably much more balanced, far more competitive, and meant for tournaments.
GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more. That doesn't mean players have to accept gakky rules from them. I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more.
Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk. Yeah, they've all got miniatures, but nobody is going around suggesting that Fantasy Flight Games isn't a games company (and some of their games are pretty terrible). Just because you don't like or don't respect Games Workshop or the games they ultimately make doesn't mean that they aren't a games company.
I'm reading this history of RPGs during the 1970s and in the introduction, it mentions that of the 30 companies profiled, only 4 are still around today in any capacity. Credit where credit is due.
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
They outsource many rules to FFG. Chaos in the Old World, Warhammer: Invasion, Relic, Warhammer: Disc Warz, Bloodbowl Team Manager, Forbidden Stars, 40k Conquest, and even Warhammer Quest now. But they aren't going to outsource the rules to the games they actively develop themselves. Because they are a games company. Occasionally, they make games.
Sqorgar wrote: Last I checked, GW was still a games company.
Must have been a while ago, then. Because according to GW, they are in the business of selling toys to children, and their product consists of high quality miniatures bought by people whose hobby is ' buying Citadel miniatures'... Not gaming.
They make games. But it's been a while since they considered themselves a games company.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more. That doesn't mean players have to accept gakky rules from them. I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
I'd like for FFG to take over rules development but I fear they would have to clear cut another hectacre of the Amazon to make all of the tokens.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Must have been a while ago, then. Because according to GW, they are in the business of selling toys to children, and their product consists of high quality miniatures bought by people whose hobby is ' buying Citadel miniatures'... Not gaming.
I've heard this before, but not why. A little searching and I found a damning "toy soldiers" snippet. It took me a while to find the full "toy soldiers" quote so that I could see it in context:
Tom Kirby wrote:
I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? Because the full quote doesn't suggest that at all.
I don't know, "Everything else we make and do is geared around that end," selling miniatures and "all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers"
Sounds like all they want to do is sell what they consider toys and everything, including the game, is just for that.
So, when people say, "GW makes AOS rules just to sell more and bigger miniatures and not to make a good game," seems to mirror GW's own point of view.
I'll take GW at their word here.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Sqorgar wrote: Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk. Yeah, they've all got miniatures, but nobody is going around suggesting that Fantasy Flight Games isn't a games company (and some of their games are pretty terrible). Just because you don't like or don't respect Games Workshop or the games they ultimately make doesn't mean that they aren't a games company.
They aren't a games company. They AoS and 40K are just a way of being able to use the miniatures you buy from them. They are a miniatures company who gives you a way to play with those miniatures with your friends.
SG
EDIT: Since I haven't seen anything about this in any AoS discussion yet, I'm going to assume that none of you all have ever played D&D or were around when WotC made the jump from ruleset 3.5e to 4e. Pretty much the exact same response as WHFB to AoS is getting. That said, I actually like 4e over 3.5e unlike many. But, WotC did do a good job of sending out rules for D&D Next (now known as 5e) and got a lot of feedback from DMs. 5e is by far the best version of the ruleset I've played so far. They really did a great job on that. Will GW do something similar? I doubt it. Why? Well, there's no real "DM" in Warhammer. And gathering together all the opinions of all the people that have some just isn't feasible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 02:49:01
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
There is also the court case where people looked through the transcript for funny quotes and found them claiming that customers hobby is buying the models etc. But someone else will know where to find that.
auticus wrote:Thats all really. You can't design a game with open parameters and expect it to appeal to competitive players, and I think GW knows that and I think GW doesn't care.
Yes you can, it just requires more effort than GW are willing to put in. Look at most any RPG, they are by their very nature infinitely more open than a wargame can ever be but companies producing them put in the time and effort to balance them and if the group wants to play on hardmode the GM has all the tools to make that happen.
Sqorgar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more.
Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk.
I'd just like to point out that for a company with 'games' in the name that is a pitiful amount of new games to release the last 10 years. Space Hulk was a remake of an old game. Dreadfleet sunk (I never get tired of that pun). Both of those were limited releases too. The assassin game I am surprised to find on GW's store still, so it must not be limited but I haven't heard 1 word about it as a game, to my knowledge people only bought it for the models. The Hobbit was a new game too technically, but really just a new edition of an old game ant it was also dead on arrival. It's... really not a great track record for 'games' from 'games workshop' when you cut out the specialist games that where released like 15 years ago.
Sqorgar wrote:
Spoiler:
Tom Kirby wrote: I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? Because the full quote doesn't suggest that at all.
That is in fact *a* main quote, though there are plenty of other little offhand comments that seem to flow in the same direction. If that's not what you took from it then by all means, tell us what you think he means when he says his company sells more toy soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ServiceGames wrote: EDIT: Since I haven't seen anything about this in any AoS discussion yet, I'm going to assume that none of you all have ever played D&D or were around when WotC made the jump from ruleset 3.5e to 4e. Pretty much the exact same response as WHFB to AoS is getting. That said, I actually like 4e over 3.5e unlike many. But, WotC did do a good job of sending out rules for D&D Next (now known as 5e) and got a lot of feedback from DMs. 5e is by far the best version of the ruleset I've played so far. They really did a great job on that. Will GW do something similar? I doubt it. Why? Well, there's no real "DM" in Warhammer. And gathering together all the opinions of all the people that have some just isn't feasible.
I wasn't around for the 3.5/4th fiasco but I have heard many a tale and was there for a little of the 5th ed playtesting and it's launch and I have to say I love it where 3.5/pathfinder just felt like a poorly constructed game to me and 4th had such a reputation that no one wanted to try it out with me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/29 02:57:39
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't know, "Everything else we make and do is geared around that end," selling miniatures and "all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers"
Sounds like all they want to do is sell what they consider toys and everything, including the game, is just for that.
So, when people say, "GW makes AOS rules just to sell more and bigger miniatures and not to make a good game," seems to mirror GW's own point of view.
But that's taking it out of context. That's ignoring who he is talking about and the frame of reference his comments are made regarding. He's basically explaining why GW has been such a profitable and resilient company to a potential investor who doesn't understand the appeal ("sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business"). He's being purposefully reductive in order to put it in terms that an outsider can understand. Why are they successful? Because they sell something that people want for a profit. Why toy soldiers? Because that's the closest reference point that an outsider can reference to kinda sorta get what Warhammer is all about. It wasn't a qualitative commentary on the game itself or its players.
And yeah, GW's business model is built on selling models, just like FFG's LCG model is built around buying $15 packs of 20 unique cards every month, with a $30 expansion every six months. Or how FFG's Imperial Assault is built around a core game + bi-yearly expansions + individual miniature packs coming out every 15 minutes. They both make and sell games, but their profit model is built on endlessly expandable games that fans continue to buy into. Nobody looks at Magic the Gathering and says "Wizards of the Coast doesn't make games. They make cards."
When people talk about GW being a toy company they are referencing their attitude. (I think).
When people read their rules and listen to what GW has to say about stuff etc it is clear they are models first junk later and it shows. Even if you don't enjoy their model aesthetic or design choices nobody can argue about their quality. the rules however leave a lot to desire. It's also come out apparently that they design cool models and then find a place for them to fit etc.
Everything from their attitude, their results and their constant talk of buying models etc makes it seem like they only sell the games as a front.
If you look at the GW page linked below, they clearly state they keep their games around because they are important (and they are despite their constant assertions that collectors are their market) because like us, they certainly understand that without the games they created 20+ years ago they would be dead by now.
investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/
Really their attitude and statements constantly like to emphasize their models with games as an after thought and this shows in their products.
A model company is something like Dragon Miniatures or Gundam or one of the many famous and large model companies out there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 03:15:27
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? .
No, there was another quote from Kirby (I believe from a financial report preamble where he directly stated that 'Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children'.
A lot of the rest of the perception of their attitude towards their business and their customers comes from the Chapterhouse case, where they claimed that the main focus of their customers is on buying their miniatures (and that wasn't even the most ridiculous thing they said in that court case), and a similar comment from the advertising for the 'new & improved' (ie - gutted) Games Day that suggested that the main focus of Games Day was buying stuff.
It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product. They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
I'm sure the studio still understands gamers... but the guys running the show patently do not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 03:24:09
insaniak wrote: It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product. They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
I'd just like to point out here that when GW say that they believe only 20% of their customers play the game they don't mean only 20% are tourney players, they don't mean only 20% are competitive players or play regularly. If you have put models on the table you are that 20%.
Now of course there is the possibility they are right, but they don't do market research so how would they know?
That is what they believe though.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
No, there was another quote from Kirby (I believe from a financial report preamble where he directly stated that 'Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children'.
I can not, for the life of me, find this quote in context. By itself, the quote appears everywhere, but not the sentences before or after it. It appears to be from the preamble to the 2004 annual report, but I can't find that either. My Google-fu is failing me.
A lot of the rest of the perception of their attitude towards their business and their customers comes from the Chapterhouse case, where they claimed that the main focus of their customers is on buying their miniatures (and that wasn't even the most ridiculous thing they said in that court case), and a similar comment from the advertising for the 'new & improved' (ie - gutted) Games Day that suggested that the main focus of Games Day was buying stuff.
Did find some Chapterhouse stuff:
Laying aside whether Chapterhouse’s copying constitutes an in fringement, the trial evidence also confirms it makes and sells its copies for exactly the same purposes for which Games Workshop creates and produces miniatures: so that they can be used by fans of Warhammer 40,000 (either for collection or to play the game.)
It seems they mention the game in conjunction with purchasing the models, though I'm sure this isn't the quote you are talking about. I found some transcripts, but it will take a while to sift through. Though, in a trial about copyright protection for model designs, one would assume that GW would overplay the importance of the models in order to solidify their case. I'll keep looking, but I suspect that this will be another case of fans being paranoid and seeing what they always feared was the case, regardless of what it actually says.
It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product.
I think it's pretty clear that they do. They don't buy the models because of a stat line in a codex somewhere (though some do). They buy them because they look awesome as models, even if they will ultimately be used to play a game.
They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
That's a misreading of the passage I quoted before. He said that the game (and the lore) give context to the miniatures, not that it is an excuse to buy them. It's like saying that Star Wars toys are popular because of the movies. It is what the game contributes to the models, making them attractive to buyers, which is what he was talking about, because he was talking about explaining GW's success to potential investors.
I'm sure the studio still understands gamers... but the guys running the show patently do not.
I've seen people who don't understanding gaming (and worked for them, briefly), and believe me, GW isn't making the same stupid mistakes these other guys are. They are making completely different stupid mistakes.
) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
