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: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 11:34:44
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
Mask the lack of AoS sales from who? People on dakka? It's not like they can hide it from themselves which is what matters the most to their decision making. Even if they fool us into thinking AoS is doing well, so what? Most aren't going to buy it anyway because it's a terrible game that deserves to die (regardless of sales)
All they need to do is keep the rot from being seen by the investors. Those are the people they really need to mask the decline from. Do remember that the majority of investors have zero to no knowledge of the community (or desire to know of it) They care about numbers, and that's what GW is trying to do.
Exactly, the absolute most critical thing for GW to do is to avoid posting a loss in their annual reports. A small increase in profits is good, a small decline is alright if you've got a plan, but a large decrease would be disasterous. If BaC has managed to cancel out the AoS flop (double digit drop) then they might get away with it for another year.
If GW start losing money, the stock value will tank as everyone tries to get out, and that'll be an utter disaster for Kirby (6.7%? of stock)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 11:40:27
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/01 11:40:24
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
That's how most historical games work, too. Arguably it's better because it means you can buy a box of 20 guys and build like 5 units (Put four guys per "unit" to represent them) instead of having only one, and also it means you can do diorama type bases (also common in historical wargaming). I don't see it as a bad thing, honestly.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
That's how most historical games work, too. Arguably it's better because it means you can buy a box of 20 guys and build like 5 units (Put four guys per "unit" to represent them) instead of having only one, and also it means you can do diorama type bases (also common in historical wargaming). I don't see it as a bad thing, honestly.
It's also a big distinction between the "game" portion and the model-dress-up portion. I rather have a solid game and have the models be a bit more abstract than have a terrible game that focuses on every single model.
Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,
I think it's just an artefact of how GW has always done it for 28mm scales - done differently is just wrong to people who grew up with GW. I mean, no-one complained about it in Warmasted, BoFA, or Epic, did they?
Units as units rather than individual characters makes sense for most mass battle games particularly in smaller scales, for at least as long as GW has been around.
I'd hate to have to play something like ancients or Napoleonics in 6mm with individual figure removal. It'd be home time before you've ranked all the little blighters up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 12:33:18
So basically starter set sold well, followed by Stormcast and Bloodbound that no one really cared about. Still a welcome surprise that it sold so well in the beginning. Not entirely unexpected... Let's hope that the dwarves early 2016 can really get the ball rolling for AoS. I'm hopeful that sales will start to pick up once older races get revamped, as long as they keep a good pace for releases (ie not like they've been doing until now).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 12:35:08
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
You know what would really have been brilliant? Releasing a fantasy game that people wanted to buy instead of AoS.
I find the notion of GW planning their releases so as to mask bad selling products with good ones to be pretty ludicrous. Why would they release AoS at all if they expected it to be such a big flop that BaC was needed to cover the losses?
As someone who bought into AoS for the models (Yes, I like Bloodbound and all the skulls) and wasn't too worried about the rules the prices for the new releases have gotten a bit ridiculous.
I'm still happy with what I bought and had fun painting them but with the prices of the new models I'd rather buy something else than expand my AoS collection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 12:47:43
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
IMHO if AOS was actually a "novel idea" then it shows outright incompetence and bankruptcy in ideas. Okay, I get that the rules are relatively simple. I get that the idea behind no points is to try and imitate (poorly IMHO) how many historical games work, which often don't have points either and leave it up to you and your opponent to decide the reason for the battle, what the forces were, and the objectives of each side. I get that. Just I feel it's stupid to do that in the way that GW does it, along with everything else they do (e.g. poor rules in general, not just unbalanced ones) and the idea it's literally play whatever you want, as many as you want, GG have fun. That's not even poor game design, that's basically no game design whatsoever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 12:53:52
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
You know what would really have been brilliant? Releasing a fantasy game that people wanted to buy instead of AoS.
Definitely, but this is GW we're talking about.
I find the notion of GW planning their releases so as to mask bad selling products with good ones to be pretty ludicrous. Why would they release AoS at all if they expected it to be such a big flop that BaC was needed to cover the losses?
I don't think they planned for GW to be a flop; I think BaC was probably scheduled to come out next year to shore up the final year results, but has been brought forward after AoS tanked. Internal gossip says sales were good for 2 months, then fell off a cliff. 3 month lead time for WD fits in perfectly with that. If they'd dropped it in the other half, it'd be pretty obvious that the drop is due to AoS and the spike is due to BaC.
I honestly believe GW expected AoS to be huge, and are now flapping about in a panic trying to decide what to do; bringing forward BaC and announcing a new Specialist Games division, "Black Friday" bundles, and so on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/01 13:07:06
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
I may be reading it wrongly but, with all due respect, I can't get the sense of what you're getting at. I really can't.
The fans didn't want AoS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 12:55:43
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
From what I can tell after seeing multiple threads about this same topic, it simply wasn't what fans wanted, and to a lot of people it seemed like GW really didn't care about rules whatsoever. GW has yet to figure out that the models and rules go hand-in-hand, and unless they want to lose a large chunk of their customers by completely discontinuing all of their rule books and codices, they need to step up their game.
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 5 years, but hey.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
There's obviously a middle ground, both in the sense of milking a product for its maximum profit margin per unit and also in terms of expecting your customers to actually pay it.
Army men aren't cheap for no reason, they are cheap to make as well. On the other side, Tamiya sells aircraft kits that are around $150, I think the Mosquito is about $250. But people don't complain because aside from being large you get 10+ sprues, photo etch parts, removable magnetised panels showing a detailed interior, engine bay, wheel wells, gun bays, etc, 500+ parts, metal bolts, shafts, nuts where appropriate, pre-cut masking sheets for canopies, movable control surfaces, optional flying stand and they come with full colour reference booklets (12 to 16 pages).
Point being, they aren't just expensive because that's what people are willing to pay, they're expensive because you actually get a crap ton of cool stuff in the box. I have heard people comment on the high price of the 1:32 Tamiya range, but it only takes a quick look at what comes in the box and the response changes from "that's expensive" to "that's awesome".
It's an insult to Perry miniatures when you say "By the same logic....army men" because Perry produce quality wargaming models that are simply good value. They may not sell the big flashy monster kits but that's simply because it doesn't match their business.
When GW comes along and releases kits that are $30-50 per sprue and they aren't even very large sprues they rightfully attract scorn.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/01 13:19:14
Herzlos wrote: I think it's just an artefact of how GW has always done it for 28mm scales - done differently is just wrong to people who grew up with GW.
This. The ubiquity of GW, the whole culture of "there are no games, rules or minis but GW's games, rules and minis", the slow growth of Warhammer from a skirmish/warband game to a - as mentioned - big skirmish/warband game... it has people convinced up is down and black is white, because they don't know any other games.
I mean, no-one complained about it in Warmasted, BoFA, or Epic, did they?
I would guess that they did, but then quietly went back to same-old Warhammer, LotR, and 40K. Barring Epic's heyday as the third core game, I'd hazard they were viewed by a lot of gamers as mild distractions, sideshows to the 'real' games. Y'know - the way AoS might have been widely accepted. "A unit manoeuvring and acting as one cohesive, gestalt... what's the right word... unit? It's unnatural!"
I'd hate to have to play something like ancients or Napoleonics in 6mm with individual figure removal. It'd be home time before you've ranked all the little blighters up.
At points like this I like to trot out a friend's anecdote: he and another guy set up a game of Epic:A at a club, next to a table where others were setting up a game of 40K Apocalypse. The game of Epic was played and over before the other table had finished turn one.
I genuinely never understood 40K Apocalypse as a game. As a way to drop cool stuff on the table and talk smack for 4 hours, fine, but from the games I've seen there's no real game as such, just a lot of set up (about 3-4x the table space dedicated to storing stuff than playing) and then that's it..
There's just no room to do anything that isn't move forward and shoot at nearest target.
Gw's pricing absurdity is not so absurd they have a mass of people who buy their products in always increasing prices and they push for that instead of trying to expand their customer base by making the product more accessible.
He believes the segment of consumers willing to buy models from GW under these terms is significant, I disagree and believe the critical mass of sustaining them is beyond the ever shrinking customer base capabilities and the ever increasing prices just make more to leave and puts more pressure on the customers who remain.
AOS seem to be a "novel idea" to address this issue, I think it failed (or better I have indications that make me think it failed) because the problems were not correctly diagnosed and the direction they took was not the one their wider potential consumer base wanted, I have novel in quotes because I think it is novel for them and their past history, not because it is really novel, moves after the release of AOS show a company who historically denied certain things to their consumer base keeping them as "aces up their sleeve" to give in and release them to the consumers in a very short time frame.
This is a worrying thing for the casual observer, especially if you read the small notes, Specialist Games want designers who can throw a game system fast, as if they are in a hurry to a finish line.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
If those numbers are for AoS only then the financial report won't help either, since it'll be buoyed by 30/40k. I'm guessing they will be very taciturn when describing AoS sales, something like "we're pleased with the reception blaha blaha" and no hard numbers. So when will we know? In a couple of years I guess, when they either drop AoS or don't
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 13:41:20
WayneTheGame wrote:I get that the idea behind no points is to try and imitate (poorly IMHO) how many historical games work, which often don't have points either and leave it up to you and your opponent to decide the reason for the battle, what the forces were, and the objectives of each side.
It's my understanding that a lot of pointsless historical games are played out according to carefully researched orders of battle and terrain. Very specific scenarios, if you will. Exploring significant wars, battles and events that decided the course of a country's history and culture, if not the world. Maybe even relating to the circumstances, decisions and fate of those for whom it wasn't a game.
On a lighter note, I'm reminded of the grand debut of the Black Powder/Hail Caesar/Pike & Shotte trio, proudly wearing their no-points status on their sleeves. Boy did the reaction make WG hurry out a few sets of points lists.
Vermis wrote: It's my understanding that a lot of pointsless historical games are played out according to carefully researched orders of battle and terrain. Very specific scenarios, if you will. Exploring significant wars, battles and events that decided the course of a country's history and culture, if not the world. Maybe even relating to the circumstances, decisions and fate of those for whom it wasn't a game.
On a lighter note, I'm reminded of the grand debut of the Black Powder/Hail Caesar/Pike & Shotte trio, proudly wearing their no-points status on their sleeves. Boy did the reaction make WG hurry out a few sets of points lists.
How does AoS compare, so far?
We do a lot of pointsless historical games but only about half the time do we use specific scenarios, They're a lot of work. The other half of the time we just dump stuff on the table and hope for the best.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
Not really. Based on the numbers I have for WHFB and AoS, the YoY deficit of AoS would not be material to the overall financial performance - so if there is a bad revenue position in the next report, people are going to get hung up on AoS doing badly when actually the majority of it will be driven by 40k.
But yeah, the only way you'll get official confirmation of the state of AoS is by how GW change the positioning and marketing of the game in the future.
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
Mymearan wrote: So basically starter set sold well, followed by Stormcast and Bloodbound that no one really cared about. Still a welcome surprise that it sold so well in the beginning. Not entirely unexpected... Let's hope that the dwarves early 2016 can really get the ball rolling for AoS. I'm hopeful that sales will start to pick up once older races get revamped, as long as they keep a good pace for releases (ie not like they've been doing until now).
5 six-footed-tall Dwaerphians for 50€. Can't wait.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Oh, and anyone looking for "fair" or "balanced" in the world of Magic, it doesn't exist The game becomes more fair with one more booster, because surely there will be a card that will help you. And if not, there's always the promise of the next booster... and if you totally flop two cases later, there's always the next big release where everything becomes irrelevant anyways, and you can start all over, buying boosters! But that's ok, we love it all the same.
Okay then. Thanks for the insights. And if you thought your post was long:
For our part, the complaints about a £100 Archaon that we'll never own anyway, are just another symptom of the fact that a lot of us are still hooked on GW to some extent. We enjoyed the games, the models, meeting up in the stores, the game world...
Strewth, the game world started off and developed as a generic pastiche of Tolkien, Moorcock, Leiber and other fantasy authors, mixed up with a liberal helping of real-world cultures and folklore; and as goofy as some bits turned out, it can't be denied that they made it their own, and made it deep, expansive, compelling and addictive. Even when other factors of the game and the company put people off, the setting, the lore - or for us older grognards, the 'fluff' - is almost always cited as the thing that keeps them in, or at least the thing they still like.
(I'm gearing up for Dragon Rampant - an upcoming 'big skirmish' fantasy game that allows any minis and any setting - along with a lot of other gamers. You could easily use it to play games set in very popular, well-known worlds like Middle-Earth or Westeros, and I plan to, but at the mo they don't get a look-in compared to all the possible warbands and retinues set in the old Warhammer World, spinning in my head.)
Unfortunately there are a lot of those factors of the game and company that put people off. The rules changed every few years, on a game and army level (though some armies were deprived of updates to bring them in line with new editions), but rarely to include objective improvements so much as seeming change for the sake of change, to make people buy the latest or newly-effective minis, and bigger armies. I guess that might not be so different to MtG... (and I think it's natural to gravitate away from Warhammer's style of rules anyway, but that's another matter)
The minis became more and more expensive, even despite changes from metal to ostensibly cheaper materials like injected polystyrene and 'finecast' resin, 'til they passed the threshold for too many people. (Finecast is a trigger word among GW spectators. Watch this.)
FINECAST
Anyway, as mentioned, from a wargaming perspective: newer, less experienced companies can sell plastic kits for 50p-£1 per infantry figure, compared to some of GW's kits at £3.50+ per figure. Heck, some of GW's plastic minis cost more than other, smaller companies' 'expensive' metal miniatures. The increasing price of bigger, deadlier-rules, centrepiece models can only make some of us shake our heads.
Meeting up in the stores... well, has a WotC employee ever told you to clear out of your regular MtG night and stay away, so other people can come in to buy boosters? (But that's nothing compared to how they treat smaller mini companies, retailers, and people who dare to write novellas containing the words 'space' and 'marine'.)
So all the bad bits piled up, and grew, and people quit. But there's still something there, still an emotional connection. Although we are talking about a business and this comparison is hyperbolic, it's like watching a good friend turn into a meth addict. You can walk away for your own good if they won't listen, but it's not so easy to shut down cold, and you hope they can recognise their self-destructive behaviour and turn it around, and the good times will return. As you say, we love it all the same.
AoS was probably one of the biggest acts of self-destruction yet, in the view of a lot of people. The previous edition, Warhammer 8th, turned off a lot of gamers for the sheer size and cost of armies needed, among other things. When rumours of a new edition or game with smaller start-up requirements started circulating, folk were optimistic, or at least interested. Even those of us who walked away before 8th ed. It sounded like a step in the right direction. The good times might be returning. But when more rumours and the game itself arrived, it was like a disaster.
Smaller model requirements? A good thing. But in the course of doing that they ripped out almost everything else too. The main rules, the block-manoeuvre mechanics, the means to organise a theoretically balanced, even-sided game. The Warhammer World, and it's decades of built-up history, probably the single biggest draw of the game, were blown up. Just scrapped, in an orgy of spending on 'End Times' books and models. And by extension causing the slow death of the existing factions and players' model collections, within the new game. The replacement background and it's minis, so far, are as deep as a puddle in comparison.
Remember the nerdrage over the Star Wars prequels? Imagine if George Lucas hadn't gone back in time, but instead said "That galaxy far, far away blew up. Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, they're all dead. The Rebel Alliance is dead. The Empire is gone. It was all for nothing. So here's the new Star Wars: six hours of Gungans and Nemoidians shooting at eachother with catapults! Check that crazy JarJar!"
It was an almost unbelievable moment of (conscious?) alienation of Warhammer's existing fanbase, which includes us 'haters', waiting in the wings, who wouldn't show up on GW's sales sheet. While there are people who like AoS, old fans and newcomers alike, it's just too different to what went before and what most old fans wanted. A big chunk of hardcore GW fans, a set who can be notoriously contemptuous of other games, jumped to Kings of War. If you're not familiar with GW history and culture, it might be difficult to grasp how significant and unprecedented that is. (Other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc. have been chipping away at GW's market, but there hasn't been a single exodus like this, AFAIK)
With most of GW's main advertising route - word of mouth by fans - now working against it's latest fantasy iteration, and anecdotes of people staying away in droves, it's difficult to see if AoS fans can pick up the slack and make it work. For some of us it's difficult to see if it deserves to work.
Not too bitter, is it?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/01 17:01:40
Kilkrazy wrote: How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
Heck, the very first 'proper' wargame was played using toy soldiers. (H.G. Wells - Little Wars.)
And even as a Wee Grump I had a system for rolling dice to see whether a shot killed one of the plastic army men. (A very simple system - roll a d6, 5-6 remove the target. Bazookas got the guy that you hit and the guys in an area around him. (I used a paper plate as a template.) I forget how I handled tanks, but I remember that one tank equaled ten guys - the most rudimentary of points systems, where one Joe equaled 1 point.)
The Auld Grump
Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
Good times!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 16:57:32
Valete,
JohnS
"You don't believe data - you test data. If I could put my finger on the moment we genuinely <expletive deleted> ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around"
cygnnus wrote: Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
Good times!
I would line up my army men on a castle, my opponent a car parking lot, and we'd take turns throwing marbles at each other's men. The trick was to spread them out so one marble couldn't take out 3 men in one go.
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.
It's an insult to Perry miniatures when you say "By the same logic....army men" because Perry produce quality wargaming models that are simply good value. They may not sell the big flashy monster kits but that's simply because it doesn't match their business.
When GW comes along and releases kits that are $30-50 per sprue and they aren't even very large sprues they rightfully attract scorn.
Well, we can certainly disagree on this, but frankly, to 95% of my friends, Army Men, Privateer Press, Games Workshop, and Perry miniatures are indistinguishable So I don't mean to insult Perry any more than GW or PP or Wyrd. They're all toy soldiers, and if you don't actually care about the model (and some people don't), you can always go cheaper, until they are virtually free.
And you're right: there most certainly should be what *feels* like a middle ground to the consumer, but practically, everything is creeping towards profit maximization today, whether by milking the customer or by milking the supply chain, and ultimately, both, hence my comment "the world we live in today".
Incidentally, I don't know if you saw my comment earlier, but in our group, some of us (me included) suspect that Australia is some kind of GW testing ground for upping the price to test sensitivity. It does boggle my mind that you guys down under buy so much GW stuff given their price, and apparently, lack of discounters.
When we disagree on whether GW kits are too expensive or not, bud, but keep in mind that in North America we probably effectively pay less than half what you do in Australia, so the perspective is a little different. For example, I just bought the Blood Angels Chaplain on Jump Pack and paid $26.40 CAD, which is $19.80 USD. I think your price there was $57? Now, $20 is expensive, sure, and trust me, we grumble about it, but for most of us that play or collect the faction here, it's not a dealbreaker. But $57 AUD (Is that about $43 USD?)... well, most of us -- even dedicated fans -- would just not buy it unless it were "must have".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/01 17:15:23
Renegades - 
Barring Epic's heyday as the third core game, I'd hazard they were viewed by a lot of gamers as mild distractions, sideshows to the 'real' games. Y'know - the way 
"A unit manoeuvring and acting as one cohesive, gestalt... what's the right word... unit? It's unnatural!"
