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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Also, prices.

It's a bit boring to keep bring this up but despite all the comparative arguments of GW versus Infinity versus Warmachine and so on, the bare fact is that GW rules are very, very expensive these days compared to many alternatives.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Diversification is generally a healthy thing for a company to do (as long as it doesn't dilute its identity in the process) so more games and ranges for people to buy is almost certainly a good thing, but 7th is very likely a reason that GW need to save themselves in the first place, not a saviour.

Diversification is key for GW to survive.

They offer a wide variety of space marines, if you look.

Blue, green, red, yellow, white, black, grey, spikey, there are even golden Space Marines now!

I ironically purchased the Gencon copy of Halo Fleet battles from Ritides because BFG at the time was dead and looked to be forever, (before the news of the specialist games returning,) and the pewter minis were too expensive on ebay. I love the BFG IP and once I get my new PC I'll beta-test the game hopefully.

All that being said, Halo is a strong IP and a decent substitute for a fleet game due to lack of support from GW (at the time,) and the prices.

That was almost 100 bucks GW could have easily of had but, didn't get due to their own shenanigans from the past. Now that I have a space fleet game it will be years before I buy into BFG, even though a year ago in the past I was practically foaming at the mouth when I heard about the game when I came back to Dakka.

I also do not think that if the prices are that of FW I could afford BFG anyways. I hope they prove me wrong with Epic and BFG though, and turn around as a company.

NoPoet wrote:They turned an incredibly deep (admittedly ponderous and rules-overloaded) game which could last an entire weekend into some passionless, characterless, uninspired tactics game where you needed hundreds of blast markers and you needed to re-buy all your infantry on the new stands.

40K, to me, seems to be reversing this bland, generic dumbing down that it seemed to be going through a few years ago. The new Codices are extremely characterful and I love reading and re-reading them. You can build armies that completely epitomise their race (unlike previous editions of the Chaos Marine Codex for example, where everything was just the generic Black Legion and there were silly restrictions about what each other Legion could take...

I'm with Silent Puffin. And I was with you until this quoted bit. 'Ponderous and rules-overloaded' is, IMO, what's slowly killing GW.

(I tell a lie. I was with you until you started badmouthing the lucius pattern. It was the first titan I saw and I think it still looks great. The old, old beetlebacks look like something out of a cracker, in comparison. )

Deadnight wrote:...dont have the khorne berzerkers hiding at the back guarding an objective - they should be screaming across the battlefield looking for skills.

Khorne only digs guys with skills.

Generally agree with you, though.

oni wrote:WH40K, FW and HH will keep GW in the black for a long time

How long's a long time? What happens when it's up?

This thread, and GW's specialist announcement gave me hope.

An AUD$170 box with 3 Knights in it took all that hope away. At this rate the first boxed BFG Fleet is going to cost AUD$300 and have 5 ships in it.

So sorry Az, but I'm going to have to come down against you again: The prices are too damned high. They make the barrier to entry basically insurmountable. They need to be cut, across the board, and they need to stop going up with each and every released.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This thread, and GW's specialist announcement gave me hope.

An AUD$170 box with 3 Knights in it took all that hope away. At this rate the first boxed BFG Fleet is going to cost AUD$300 and have 5 ships in it.

Don't worry, there'll be free rules online! All 2 pages of it!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This thread, and GW's specialist announcement gave me hope.

An AUD$170 box with 3 Knights in it took all that hope away. At this rate the first boxed BFG Fleet is going to cost AUD$300 and have 5 ships in it.

So sorry Az, but I'm going to have to come down against you again: The prices are too damned high. They make the barrier to entry basically insurmountable. They need to be cut, across the board, and they need to stop going up with each and every released.

170 :0 that is getting crazy price. At least in Aus I think that's a huge problem.

Apple fox wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This thread, and GW's specialist announcement gave me hope.

An AUD$170 box with 3 Knights in it took all that hope away. At this rate the first boxed BFG Fleet is going to cost AUD$300 and have 5 ships in it.

So sorry Az, but I'm going to have to come down against you again: The prices are too damned high. They make the barrier to entry basically insurmountable. They need to be cut, across the board, and they need to stop going up with each and every released.

170 :0 that is getting crazy price. At least in Aus I think that's a huge problem.

My gut check says, 'I agree'. What I don't really get, though is, given the crazy AUD prices, why Oz seems to be such a great market (in sales dollars) for GW. Incidentally, the conspiracy theory wing of my play group thinks GW uses Australia to test the effects of higher prices.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This thread, and GW's specialist announcement gave me hope.

An AUD$170 box with 3 Knights in it took all that hope away. At this rate the first boxed BFG Fleet is going to cost AUD$300 and have 5 ships in it.

So sorry Az, but I'm going to have to come down against you again: The prices are too damned high. They make the barrier to entry basically insurmountable. They need to be cut, across the board, and they need to stop going up with each and every released.

In my defence, I made those arguments before they tried to flog us 3 plastic horsies for £60!

But if they charged you $50 for a Tac Squad, rather than the current $65? How'd you feel then? Because that's not a price cut, that's simply a direct translation from GBP price.

I'm not saying that some of their offerings aren't ludicrously overpriced, I'm simply saying that the solution to the issue that hopefully results in a still trading GW at the end of it is a more complex one than simply "cut everything by X%"

Without doubt, barrier to entry is a significant issue, and I've long advocated a "1 HQ, 2 Troops, another box of your choice plus the Codex" type bundle with a heavy discount as an alternative to fixed starters, but I think the barriers to further than simple price, I genuinely feel that the game has become sufficiently unengaging for many to persevere with even if they do make an initial purchase. Too many arbitrary rolls (I once blew up Turnip Jedi's Farseer at the top of turn one with lucky rolls on the Warp Storm table - imagine if that'd been a new player in their first few games and how demoralising it may have been) makes the whole experience too much like one of those Dragons Lair type games, where I just sit there and watch for most of it, randomly hitting buttons at the occasional moment in the hope I get to advance to the next bit.

Plus there's an issue of rules density. Clearly somebody somewhere thinks this is an issue too, cause AOS, but it takes multiple games to really get a handle on things, and still situations crop up where rules have been forgotten, misunderstood, or simply nobody knows how they're resolved.

Contrast that with X Wing, where I've seldom seen it take more than about three turns before a new player forgets about how to play the game, and simply gets on with playing it. X Wing's a slightly different animal to 40K of course, and 40K (and, one day, Fantasy too hopefully) demands more of an investment of time, money and effort. This could be a good thing, greater investment should reap greater rewards, but outside of the creative element, I just don't see that coming from GW product right now, as the product quality isn't there at any price.

 Vermis wrote:

Deadnight wrote:...dont have the khorne berzerkers hiding at the back guarding an objective - they should be screaming across the battlefield looking for skills.

Khorne only digs guys with skills.

I think that you are confusing Khorne with Slaanesh - Khorne cares about size, not skill....

The Auld Grump

To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

Or getting a bit more of your money's worth when buying a box of miniatures.

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Not sure if this is tongue in cheek, since I recall you being a Kings of War guy. Unless you mean it's the best thing GW did since it pushed many WHFB players to KoW

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

So? I think AoS was pretty obvious GW was trying to appeal to a new crowd. They obviously didn't really care how it would affect their veterans, I think they were trying to grab new younger players with obvious Good guys and Bad guys and simple rules.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

So? I think AoS was pretty obvious GW was trying to appeal to a new crowd. They obviously didn't really care how it would affect their veterans, I think they were trying to grab new younger players with obvious Good guys and Bad guys and simple rules.

And is that the best thing GW has done recently? They still require those veterans to advertise on their behalf via word of mouth. How much money have those vets spent over the years and how much would they continued to have spent but now wont? It's all well and good to say WHFB didn't sell and couldn't be maintained, but AoS is not the result of looking at why WHFB wasn't selling, asking the community what they wanted, and presenting that to a potential market.
AoS is the result of throwing gak at a wall and seeing if people buy it.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

So? I think AoS was pretty obvious GW was trying to appeal to a new crowd. They obviously didn't really care how it would affect their veterans, I think they were trying to grab new younger players with obvious Good guys and Bad guys and simple rules.

Which they could and should have done as a specialist game.

I think they should have gone down the same route as the LOTR SBG and the WOTR mass battle game. Individually based models for the skirmish game (which serves as an introduction for new players), ranked up into units using movement trays for the mass battle game (warhammer 9th ed.) for veteran and new players who've built up a big collection and want a more in depth way and tactical way to play large games.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

So? I think AoS was pretty obvious GW was trying to appeal to a new crowd. They obviously didn't really care how it would affect their veterans, I think they were trying to grab new younger players with obvious Good guys and Bad guys and simple rules.

At the cost of WHFB and at least 50% of their FB players/customers? Hardly "the best thing GW has done since 2009". I'd wager BaC is the best thing GW has done since 2009, out of the top of my head :p

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Not sure if this is tongue in cheek, since I recall you being a Kings of War guy. Unless you mean it's the best thing GW did since it pushed many WHFB players to KoW

That's how I took it, and he'd be right. GW have managed to create a golden age of gaming.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

I think that was his point...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

And 4th edition Space Hulk

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

Battle of Cattle? Which chapter did it feature? The Bovine Marines?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

Battle of Cattle? Which chapter did it feature? The Bovine Marines?

They have big halberds. And are led by Chapter Master Cow King. They move in a giant block on a murderous rampage. Really good drops and xp.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

Battle of Cattle? Which chapter did it feature? The Bovine Marines?

The Minotaurs, of course!

The game is a fight between some Space Marines and some Space Marines.

SMs as we all know are the the hunky beefcake poster boys of 40K, that is to say they are beeves.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

They've only done four new things since 2009; Dread Fleet, the Assassin game, AoS and Battle of Cattle, so there isn't much competition.

Battle of Cattle? Which chapter did it feature? The Bovine Marines?

The Minotaurs, of course!

Known pejoratively as the Bovine Marines.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To answer OP, yes, as Age of Sigmar is the best thing GW has done since 2009.

Unless you are a fan of the Old World, mass battles, or competitive play.

Or even half-way decent rules.

Considering the impact that Age of Sigmar has made on the local market... (akin to the impact of a rotten tomato on a brick wall) I would hesitate to pull tAoS out as an example of 'saving themselves', more like getting a bigger shovel to make the hole that they are digging themselves into get bigger, faster.

WH30K, is a better example, and the possible return of Specialist Games is also at least an attempt.

Age of Sigmar is a better example of what they need to save themselves from....

The Auld Grump - there is a little thing called 'Market Research' that would help a lot....

Known pejoratively as the Bovine Marines.

Would they govern the Ultramoo sector?

puree wrote:

Known pejoratively as the Bovine Marines.

Would they govern the Ultramoo sector?

Famed for its milk exports.

<groans>. These cow jokes are udder bull.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

puree wrote:

Known pejoratively as the Bovine Marines.

Would they govern the Ultramoo sector?

Famed for its milk exports.

Oh, come on! That is udder nonsense!

I am pretty sure that we can keep the cow jokes going for heifer and heifer, because a little bull goes a long way.

Do people still call the Keeper of Secrets the Bondage Cow?

The Auld Grump