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.

Manchu wrote:
Pure speculation but I think GW is skeptical about the "traditional" (last 20 years or so) model of how and where people play their games. I doubt releasing AoS without points-based list building was either an oversight due to incompetence or laziness. They may be hedging for a future where customers shop mostly online and do most of their gaming at home with friends.

I mean, it really makes no sense to judge BaC as a board game against the larger board game market. This is apparent to anyone here who thinks about it for more than a moment. I think it's also apparent to folks working at GW. So why sell models to miniatures gamers under the guise of a board game? Simple: it is actually a miniatures game with a lot of the "traditional" elements cut out because maybe it is not designed for a system of pick up play at the LGS ... just like AoS. And like AoS, the "traditional" elements have been replaced with something else which is a lower barrier to play.

If true, I guess it would go to show how out of touch GW is with gamers. Their is realy two distinct groups of gamers, and lumping the store gamers in with the home gamers is a huge mistake. It's the gamers who play in stores that help intro the game, and spread the game via-word of mouth.

Making games that discourage you from playing in a pick-up environment, leaves the store gamers to wither on the vine and go to other game systems. It is the completle repeat of the mistakes they made with specialist games.

@AllSeeingSkink

Hedging could be the wrong word. Replace it with planning. What I am getting at is, GW could be saying, here's where we are with this older approach and we don't think that market is growing or can be grown adequately and so we need a different approach. Many of us here, posting in a thread like this, are going to have trouble seeing this because we're part of the market I am suggesting GW is less interested in and turning away from, so of course all of this looks like folly to us. This fits pretty well with GW's turn away from the LGS, too.

About "friends playing at home" not caring about points ... well points are part of the rules of games that use points. And, as discussed earlier ITT, people tend to voluntarily submit to the rules of games they purchase despite nobody coming to their house to make them do it. This makes sense: they bought the game after all, of course they probably intend to use it as directed. If you're having trouble imagining this point from the perspective of a miniatures gamer, then try thinking about it from the perspective of a board gamer where learning and following the rules is a central part of the activity.

@Lockark

When you say GW is out of touch with gamers, you're assuming that gamers are a monolithic group. My speculation assumes the opposite, there are many kinds of gamers. Moreover, I am suggesting that perhaps GW does not see in-store pick-up play as key to their success going forward. If GW is out of touch with a market segment it no longer views as central, well, that's understandable. It isn't impossible that GW is in touch with the segment they believe is key to their success ... and that this segment does not include us. Plus, perhaps it is us who are out of touch with how the market is changing, because we're the ones insisting that AoS is flawed because it does not conform to the structure and received wisdom of the past 20 years. In fact, we are the ones who are in effect saying GW should be doing things like it is still 2000.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Friends playing at home shouldn't care whether a game has points or not. A lot of my games in the first few years of wargaming (mid to late 90's) were with friends at one of our homes and we mostly just ignored the points system anyway.

Your experience is very different to mine, then. The guys I started out with might have chosen to skew points one way or the other as appropriate for a scenario, or to allow a generous leeway when list building, but having a points system in place still gave a starting point.

If AoS had been my introduction to miniature wargaming, I have no idea how we would have gone about actually setting up a game with no way of knowing how to balance units against each other.

People blaming bad sales of AoS in particular on store owners/ managers/ salesmen should aply to GW asap. And feel bad.

Really how desperate can you get, those were a sad few pages to read.

A good game, especialy from GW, would sell crazy amounts even if the salesman was a nerdraging misanthropist stinking of fish and spitting on the copies while talking.

If you want to believe that in the world where even 40k is loosing sales because of garbage rules and crazy prices, where whfb died of similar reasons, that a new game with even worse, extremly shallow rules and crazier prices that managed to piss off players like nothing ever in GW history and is not advertised will suddenly flourish, well freedom babe. Noone says you cant believe Putin and Obama are reptillian.

I always hated their rules but was such a GW fanboy anyway that I still bought a Dreadfleet box. And still was ready to start AoS after it was made known that it was built on the ashes of the old world. The rules were too much though, not even the lack of points but the mindlessness it reeked of, and managed to make me stop buying 40k as well not to mention killing all the brand loyalty of mine, really I had GW imprinted on the back of my skull for 20 years. Must be some bad salesman somewhere I guess.

If so, GW failed to get the key point that Kickstarters are pre-orders.

And I keep wondering whether those putting in their 'pre-order' realize that kickstarter is not a pre-order system but a way of contributing too something that may not succeed. It may not happen much, but I can never help but be amazed at kickstarters that go wrong and the reactions of those who were part of it, clearly not grasping that that it was not simply a pre-order system.

The idea that games should just sell, absent any salesmanship, is perhaps all too much in evidence in many a LGS and could in part explain why one can always count on a given example to carry MtG and 40k while just about everything else is hit or miss.

Are you seriously claiming that the company that called market research otiose has some revolutionary vision of the future of their market?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

A good game, especialy from GW, would sell crazy amounts even if the salesman was a nerdraging misanthropist

Ah, memories.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Are you seriously claiming that the company that called market research otiose has some revolutionary vision of the future of their market?

No, just that they possibly think they have some revolutionary vision of the future of their market.

I think GW has a fair idea of how they intend to make money in the coming years and that their plans are based on more knowledge, experience, and insight about doing so than anything exhibited around here, naturally, considering no one posting ITT is in anything like the position of the decision makers at GW. Somewhere between them being utter morons on the one hand and serenely infallible on the other lays the truth and I very much suspect, I suppose to the chargrin of many posters, that they are not anything like the morons many of us guess or would maybe even like to think they are. With that in mind, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the company believes its future does not lay in plugging on with the way things have been since, say, circa 2000 -- even if anything but the style of that period give or take five years on either side has become unimaginable for a niche within a niche within a niche. Oh and:

Manchu wrote:
The idea that games should just sell, absent any salesmanship, is perhaps all too much in evidence in many a LGS and could in part explain why one can always count on a given example to carry MtG and 40k while just about everything else is hit or miss.

Forgot to mention, this may also be a reason why the LGS appears to figure less and less in GW's business model.

Manchu wrote:
The idea that games should just sell, absent any salesmanship, is perhaps all too much in evidence in many a LGS and could in part explain why one can always count on a given example to carry MtG and 40k while just about everything else is hit or miss.

Unfortunately, it would also seem to be the philosophy that GW themselves are subscribing to, since dropping a new game on the market with no real preview phase gives salespeople no opportunity to be familiar enough with the product to actually sell it. If relies on people being excited enough about the fact that GW have released something new to buy it without caring whether or not it's good.

 insaniak wrote:
without caring whether or not it's good

Because the primary issue is whether or not it will sell. Whether a game is "good" is entirely a matter of taste. Effective salespeople constantly sell things they don't think are good. In any case, I don't want to get into defending GW's news blackout policy because frankly I don't understand it and it frustrates me. But I will say that the GW rep for my LGS called the store management and explained the key features of AoS before the store ordered any copies. It was the rep's job to get the store to carry the product. It was the managers' job to determine whether that was appropriate for the dimensions of their business and, if so, to what extent. Given there is a conflict of interests here, this kind of interaction is not going to be totally transparent. Even so, this is frankly a lot more communication than a LGS seems to have (in my very limited knowledge) with virtually any other publisher, including WotC and certainly FFG.* I think this is probably wandering a little away from the point, I just want to explain that sales = good is at least as true as good = sales, it's sort of a matter of which side of the cash register you are on.

*As an example, guess how my LGS found out Target would be exclusively carrying the new X-Wing starter at launch? That's right, a Target ad.

If AoS had been my introduction to miniature wargaming, I have no idea how we would have gone about actually setting up a game with no way of knowing how to balance units against each other.

If you are being introduced to mini wargaming then you probably have no minis worth worrying about, and therefore no reason to be worried about points. Most point systems are based around games of a certain size, where certain assumptions can be made as to your ability to have a balance of unit types. It wouldn't matter if there was a great points system if the 20 infantry you had was playing against your friend who only had some armor. You might even outpoint him, but if you don't have the anti armor weapons you are in trouble.

That was my early wargaming. If the games I played had points I don't remember, it was just a case of field what you could. After those games you built up an idea of 'value' through actual experience. Kids are richer nowadays, but back when I was knee high to a grasshopper you saved and bought your next model/unit either because you liked it or because, from experience, you knew you needed it to counter your friends tank.

As for scenario/setup, again it was just stick down your models, put down some terrain (card hills, railway models buildings, paper mache stuff etc) andplay. Some blue tape would make a river, and the person with less stuff would defend that or something. Kids for the most part have the great imagination and do not really need set scenarios, that seems to be something that comes to some as they get older.

There may be a difference in what you expect in your introduction. IME kids (who are the usual age group for 'intro to wargaming') are able to have fun irrespective of some awesome balance system in the intro phase. The get to play with their cool minis and grasp that their lack of balance isn't down to points but down to not even having the models that they need.

I'm seeing Kids/Teens as being the intro age. Are you thinking more adults get introduced to wargaming, and that they lack that 'just play' mentality?

Manchu wrote:
About "friends playing at home" not caring about points ... well points are part of the rules of games that use points. And, as discussed earlier ITT, people tend to voluntarily submit to the rules of games they purchase despite nobody coming to their house to make them do it. This makes sense: they bought the game after all, of course they probably intend to use it as directed.

As a counter point, we play some games primarily 'At home' and points never really factor into it, I've been playing flames of war for three years now, and I couldn't tell you the points costs of a single unit in that game.

'Use it as directed' outside of 'organised play' is kind of open ended when gw and other companies (I have a link to a privateer press insider article where they say the same thing) for example often have the caveat that 'if you don't like it, then agree with your friends and change it'. I mean. We're creative In terms of writing our lore for our dudes and naming them. We are creative in terms of painting our dudes. The idea that there is 'one true way' to actually play 'as directed' with our dudes strikes me as illogical - being creative with the hobby doesn't necessarily stop at the point where you put your stuff on the tabletop.

Manchu wrote:
I think GW has a fair idea of how they intend to make money in the coming years and that their plans are based on more knowledge, experience, and insight about doing so than anything exhibited around here, naturally, considering no one posting ITT is in anything like the position of the decision makers at GW. Somewhere between them being utter morons on the one hand and serenely infallible on the other lays the truth and I very much suspect, I suppose to the chargrin of many posters, that they are not anything like the morons many of us guess or would maybe even like to think they are.

I don't necessarily agree. I think internal gw corporate culture subscribes to a particular worldview and narrative that is not necessarily in sync with what is out there. There is an official gw attitude, and thinking outside that gets you fired. I don't think they're the idiots people like to imagine them to be, but at the same time, I think their success is far less to to with their strategic vision and their views for the future often times are disconnected from the reality. The idea that they have a hidden cache of knowledge, experience and insight and a plan that we're just not seeing is a bit dishonest and disrespectful to folks. Ive seen enough comments from former staffers and former 'names' like Pete Haines that do suggest a culture that is not necessarily forward thinking but rather 'keep them in line and doing what they're told'. Look at the 'amusing gw anecdote' on the dakka discussions subfforum.The people who make the decisions there often are not the gamers. This is not necessarily a bad thing (too much blue sky thinking is never good, and frankly, the design studio has been quite ill disciplined and inconsistent in terms of their approach to the game as well) but I think within gw, it leans far too much one way to be healthy. The design studio is in essence the promotions division. I don't think the design studio gets the creative freedom they need to make really exciting moves any more(bar make more space marines). Gw is a hire and fire company where often management will bust your chops just to prove that they're the ones with the biggest balls. All quotes apparently attributed to Pete Haines by the way...

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Friends playing at home shouldn't care whether a game has points or not. A lot of my games in the first few years of wargaming (mid to late 90's) were with friends at one of our homes and we mostly just ignored the points system anyway.

Your experience is very different to mine, then. The guys I started out with might have chosen to skew points one way or the other as appropriate for a scenario, or to allow a generous leeway when list building, but having a points system in place still gave a starting point.

If AoS had been my introduction to miniature wargaming, I have no idea how we would have gone about actually setting up a game with no way of knowing how to balance units against each other.

I should clarify, when I said "a lot of my games in the first few years" I didn't mean "that's where we started".

We started off playing by the points, built our armies by the points but we were such a small group that after a while the games became predictable and we noticed the same people losing and the same people winning. So we started mixing it up by altering the points, swapping armies, inventing new scenarios and negotiating what we took instead of trying to reach a certain points level.

If the game had no points values to begin with, that totally would have sucked IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
About "friends playing at home" not caring about points ... well points are part of the rules of games that use points. And, as discussed earlier ITT, people tend to voluntarily submit to the rules of games they purchase despite nobody coming to their house to make them do it. This makes sense: they bought the game after all, of course they probably intend to use it as directed. If you're having trouble imagining this point from the perspective of a miniatures gamer, then try thinking about it from the perspective of a board gamer where learning and following the rules is a central part of the activity.

I've only observed that attitude in pick up games where it's not possible to realistically negotiate the rules. "Playing with friends at home" to me = playing with people I know reasonably well and communicate with more frequently than just some person I'm playing a pick up game with (otherwise I tend to not invite them to my home to begin with ).

When I'm playing with friends it usually goes something like this...

Friend 1: "That rule really sucks"
Friend 2: "I don't mind it, but we can change it for the next game"

After a while you are constantly changing the rules, inventing new scenarios, adjusting the points levels because you don't think certain units are fair. That's the advantage of playing with friends.

Playing pick up games is also fun but a nightmare when you have to negotiate things all the time.

Exactly. A points system can be ignored or altered as the players sees fit.

A system without any balancing mechanism just leaves it entirely up to the players... And if the players lack experience with the system, that's a difficult thing to expect them to do.

Deadnight wrote:
The idea that there is 'one true way' to actually play 'as directed' with our dudes strikes me as illogical

The good news is AoS may be right up your alley, if you like the models. Well, of course, I was not arguing at all that there is One True Way. I'm making the much more sensible point that people who buy a ruleset very often intend to play by that ruleset.

Deadnight wrote:
I think internal gw corporate culture subscribes to a particular worldview and narrative that is not necessarily in sync with what is out there.

This certainly could be the case but then again it could also be the case in many settings such as a message board.

Deadnight wrote:
The idea that they have a hidden cache of knowledge, experience and insight and a plan that we're just not seeing is a bit dishonest and disrespectful to folks.

This is really putting words into my mouth. First, what is hidden? The only thing hidden is what we may not have the capacity to see thanks to, as you put, perhaps subscribing to a particular worldview and narrative that is not necessarily in sync with what is out there. For example, to suggest that GW is operating without any plan is pure foolishness. The notion that its staff have no knowledge or experience is roundly laughable. OTOH, I do agree with you after reading anecdote after anecdote over the years from various levels of GW staffers that there is corporate rigidity at odds with the spirit, as it were, of this funny little hobby of ours and no one can accuse GW at any level of always making the best or wisest decisions.

All of this is exactly suitable for the design of AoS:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"Playing with friends at home" to me = playing with people I know reasonably well and communicate with more frequently than just some person I'm playing a pick up game with (otherwise I tend to not invite them to my home to begin with ).

When I'm playing with friends it usually goes something like this...

Friend 1: "That rule really sucks"
Friend 2: "I don't mind it, but we can change it for the next game"

After a while you are constantly changing the rules, inventing new scenarios, adjusting the points levels because you don't think certain units are fair. That's the advantage of playing with friends.

Playing pick up games is also fun but a nightmare when you have to negotiate things all the time.

By contrast, AoS is not suited to pick-up play. Again, I doubt that is a coincidence. Now, if what you're describing is what GW designed AoS to do, who GW designed AoS for, where, when, etc, what conclusions can we draw about GW's attitude toward the future of pick-up play to its business model?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think AoS needs to exceed WHFB sales, because it's a lot cheaper to produce.

No rules, no army books, no armies even except the new Sigmarines and some other models like the new Kaos Knights and floating wizard. These are all very expensive, as are the few books available.

I think they can afford to sell a lot fewer units, because the running costs are much lower.

That's true, I also didn't factor in that they don't need designers and developers for AoS at this point, just the staff needed to produce the books.
With no points play testing is not required either, so they save on the man hours needed to do that.

One factor I did realize though is shelf space. That was supposed to be one of the big reasons to put SG in one umbrella and no longer carry them in stores, and I would imagine that if AoS was less profitable than WHFB they would slowly reduce AoS stock in stores to make room for new products.

 Manchu wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
The idea that there is 'one true way' to actually play 'as directed' with our dudes strikes me as illogical

The good news is AoS may be right up your alley, if you like the models. Well, of course, I was not arguing at all that there is One True Way. I'm making the much more sensible point that people who buy a ruleset very often intend to play by that ruleset.

With respect, what you said earlier was to Try to dismiss the notion that folks at home don't care about points, and still intend to play the game 'as directed'. Hence the 'one true way'. I'm presuming it's the Internet, and tone/intent doesn't always translate well, but your point is still not necessarily accurate, regardless of it being 'a sensible point' or not. We've bought games for our group (firestorm armada, drop zone commander, flames of war, infinity etc) and we don't necessarily 'intend' to play by that rules set - more often that not its pick the elements we like. Run with them. And then add in our own stuff on top of it.

About "friends playing at home" not caring about points ... well points are part of the rules of games that use points. And, as discussed earlier ITT, people tend to voluntarily submit to the rules of games they purchase despite nobody coming to their house to make them do it. This makes sense: they bought the game after all, of course they probably intend to use it as directed.

And no. Aos is not right up my alley. For several reasons. Number one is I think the models are lazy, boring, uninspired and I dislike the squat, misshapen and out of proportion dimensions of the models. Second reasons is the price point is frankly, ridiculous for some of the newer stuff. Third point is I dislike the rules mechanics. Waterweed down 30year old wfb mechanics -'roll on 3s and 4s'. Which, to be fair, is fine for what it is. But I've been playing that game engine since I was a kid - I'm not interested in playing another slight variation on the same old thing. If gw had used the lotr 'engine' as the baseplate for Aos, then we'd be having a completely different conversation. simply put, war gaming mechanics have moved on. And there have been far more interesting rules sets designed over the last thirty years that simply using the core warhammer Dna yet again. Beyond this, the whole 'discuss with your opponent what to bring, brew up an interesting scenario' stick of Aos - well, I do that anyway. And with for what I regard to be far more interesting game systems. So Aos offers me nothing that I don't already do. Coupled with rubbish (IMO) models, price point and mechanics - really for me there is no point going there.

 Manchu wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I think internal gw corporate culture subscribes to a particular worldview and narrative that is not necessarily in sync with what is out there.

This certainly could be the case but then again it could also be the case in many settings such as a message board.

Undoubtedly. Perception bias and confirmation bias is a thing. It's why I'm quite sceptical of anecdotes myself. I remember before I moved to the UK from Ireland, I played 40k. And wanted to play warmachine. But from what I could see there was no player base, so stuck with 40k. Ask the 40k players, there was only 40k. Now I accidentally got found out as a prospective warmachine player (long story there) and fell into a warmachine playing group that I'd never known existed. They were like oil and water with the gw players I knew - they simply didn't mix and neither was aware of the other. So when folks tell me '[game x] isn't played around here', I don't necessarily see that as an accurate viewpoint. From their perception it may be, but often there is more to the story than just that.

Then again, with regard to gw, there are enough examples and indications out there that suggest a level of hostility and contempt for their consumer base, and in terms of higher direction with the studio, there is a viewpoint of aiming for what they want the gaming ecosystem to be, rather than dealing with what it actually is. Remember, gw don't necessarily talk to us - they've closed a lot of the avenues for feedback (arguably with some decent reasons behind it - we can be a toxic lot) and do a lot of things in house, which reinforces this cultural barrier between How they perceive things to be, and how things actually are. Play testing was a perfect example - I remember when they shut down the external play testing groups at the dawn of fifth (not that they really listened to them before then either!)

 Manchu wrote:
[

Deadnight wrote:
The idea that they have a hidden cache of knowledge, experience and insight and a plan that we're just not seeing is a bit dishonest and disrespectful to folks.

This is really putting words into my mouth. First, what is hidden? The only thing hidden is what we may not have the capacity to see thanks to, as you put, perhaps subscribing to a particular worldview and narrative that is not necessarily in sync with what is out there. For example, to suggest that GW is operating without any plan is pure foolishness. The notion that its staff have no knowledge or experience is roundly laughable. OTOH, I do agree with you after reading anecdote after anecdote over the years from various levels of GW staffers that there is corporate rigidity at odds with the spirit, as it were, of this funny little hobby of ours and no one can accuse GW at any level of always making the best or wisest decisions.

It was expanding on a point rather than trying to 'put words in your mouth' - you claimed gw potentially had more knowledge, experience and insight than us. Hence hidden knowledge beyond our grasp. And i often get this 'well you just don't see the bigger picture' Argument from folks (not you, by the way - in real life people) who rather dictate rather than discuss, and being honest, I don't put much stock in it as a vehicle for an argument.

To the other points - gw have a plan, but like I said, it often comes across that their plan is based on what they want their player base/customers to be, rather than dealing with what's actually there. And oftentimes they seem to come across as not understanding their own industry. They know x sells, they don't know why x sells. This is changing though. Slowly.

Staffers do have knowledge and experience, but often the shot callers are those for whom 'the game' isn't the driving priority, and that knowledge and experience is basically chucked aside in favour of deadlines, and corporate direction. Remember. Hire and fire company. Toe the line or that manager will bust your balls and you will be out on your ear.

 Manchu wrote:

By contrast, AoS is not suited to pick-up play. Again, I doubt that is a coincidence. Now, if what you're describing is what GW designed AoS to do, who GW designed AoS for, where, when, etc, what conclusions can we draw about GW's attitude toward the future of pick-up play to its business model?

The conclusions suggest a lack of understanding of their player base and how they play, versus how they want their player base to play. Pick up play shouldn't necessarily be the default (as opposed to free form game building) but there are big advantages and appeal to just being able to turn up and get on with it rather than requiring negotiation, compromising etc.

...It's why I'm quite sceptical of anecdotes myself. I remember before I moved to the UK from Ireland...

Made me giggle a bit.

As for the debate on how AoS is doing, I honestly think this is a toss up. I don't think the loud gamers are the largest sources of income for GW. Nothing suggest we would be, and here I'm speaking as a former clerk and a current consumer. We are still a large segment of the market, and GW really should be listening to us. Especially since we are a huge part of their marketing strategy. So by pissing the hardcore gamers off, there is no way they aren't losing potential revenue.

Question is - If this is a long term strategy, will it work? Fantasy grew a lot over the years, and then it started to decline. Maybe not as much in the tournament scene, but definitely in sales. Resales and copies have no doubt hurt GW too, and the fact that a large segment have turned to 40k hasn't helped either. Maybe GW is thinking a bit like they do on Wallstreat. Cash out before the bubble truly bursts, and invest in another long term business. Even if some people don't like AoS, it still has a potential to grow as a new interesting game that is MUCH easier to get into. We also have to acknowledge that boardgames are growing each year and are competing for gamers attentions. Especially because of the convoluted rules of warhammer that haven't changed much in 20 years.

There are so many things to consider, and even if the salesnumbers of early next year aren't great, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. All we can do is cast our votes with our money, and even though I hate that GW reset the world, I have stil put more money into fantasy than any other year. Alot of my local nay-sayers have very good points about why AoS is a problem, but what stands out the most to me is that they hardly ever bought any new models for fantasy, and they didn't really buy paints either. And that is why their votes in all honesty counts for less.

Interesting debate, but I'm not sure what it acomplishes. We are probably not changing anything and it honestly feels like the community is taking a bigger hit than GW from all this bickering.

Thats my thoughts at least.

My wallet is buying AoS and paints and old WHF for the first time ever.

Now, if we could make combat more simple like the just release Horus Heresy Calth and print the warscrolls onto standard size cards (MtG), I'd be all set.

I think some people are misunderstanding my point about it is the stores responsibility to sell items. People keep harping on well the product is just bad. I will repeat sells is not just selling the product but understanding what to bring in and how much. Now that's not to say that you won't ever bring in something that is just a shelf dog. That actually needs to be factored into the equation, there is always going to be some loss and there is a right and wrong way to handle that. Sometimes you can even turn it into a gain. I'm going to give a real life example of the most successful store I'm aware of Miniature Market, they may be the most successful hobby retailer in the US, though that's just my anecdotal opinion and shouldn't be taken as gospel. Anyway on to the example.

When the Force Awakens core set came out for retailers other than Target, I decided check MMs stock level because I'm always curious of their buying trends. I didn't get around to it until 2 days after the release date, they had 1805 in stock at that moment. That's on top of every other restock and new release they ordered that week (a store that carries roughly 30k uniques according to them) so they probably have considerable buying power. Now lets contrast that with the release of Gates of Antares, they brought in roughly 5 of each item and on top of that they didn't even bring in every item. Pretty low for a company that has the enormous buying power. This was a brand new X-Wing core set based on a movie that's probably going to break all the records is pretty much a guaranteed seller. Gates however is a relative unknown, so by bringing in only a few if it flops and they don't sell a single item from the line then the loss is negligible.

Now an example of how to handle overage and turn it into future revenue, MM had a large stock of Halo Fleet Battles (a game I didn't even bring in because I did not believe I could sell it based on my market) they set it to 40% off but only existing items and not the new items they had up for pre-order. Now I can tell you at 40% off they were still making a profit per item, though the margin was probably in the range of about 10% or so. It's difficult to tell because distributors will give a much greater price break based on your volume of order from them, at least the ones I deal with. So how did this help them turn overage into a positive. Well they created a ton of new players by offering it at a discount (most of the clearance items sold out), they also created instant data for how much they should order of new releases. Even if those who bought the existing items had only a 50% retention rate that's quite good and will lead to future sales. This doesn't even factor in the people who will show it to their friends and then tell them about the sale. Friends who then may love the game and become new customers.

This is why I say the onus is on the store. It is hard decisions to make, it does require a lot of research some of which is unorthodox. It sometimes also just takes a gut feeling. You win sometimes you lose sometimes, but you absolutely must be aware of and attempt to control all the outside factors possible. That is your job as the business owner, GM, order minion or whoever.

Manchu has mentioned that GW seems to believe that the LGS is not the future, I'm sort of on the fence on that one. I do agree that the traditional brick and mortar is 100% a dying model, it has been for many retail markets and the hobby market will be no different especially as it continues to see growth. There's a couple of reasons for this, the growing market means that more and more people who are not let's say your "traditional" gamer are getting into board games, minis, rpgs and the like. This isn't 30 years ago, the people shopping today expect a certain thing. They expect uniforms, they expect to be greeted and engaged, they also do not like to pay MSRP. The "traditional" brick and mortar lacks these things, being a passionate hobbyist isn't enough anymore. The MSRP is itself the biggest limiting factor to a buy in form a customer. After all how many of us complain about GW prices? So why is it the online retailer can overcome these obstacles much easier, well for one they have less overhead, for instance miniature market has one store front and then they have a warehouse to store their massive quantities, their play space also is not impressive. As far as customer service goes they have much less hurdles to jump, when I shop online I don't have to worry is a store employee going to make me angry with poor professionalism (we've already established that my standard is apparently unbearably high). Nope I just click on an item then check out. They also have a much longer reach, they don't need to only generate money off their local environment, they can reach anyone anywhere. These things combine allow them to offload a huge volume, that volume in turn allows them to sell everything below MSRP. I've seen them sell MTG boxes at 90 a pop, even less if you buy by the case! The lower MSRP in turns allows for even greater volume.

Lastly someone mentioned that demos are a good reason to believe the "traditional" LGS is not going to die out. Well I disagree because the majority of new players are not brought in by a demo. They are brought in by a friend. Friends get more people into gaming then anything else. Now don't take that as don't do demos, they are critical if you do have a front. But we all better start combining that front with an online store, and no eBay and things like it don't count. We as retailers are going to have to adapt or die.

Here's my problem with GW, GW doesn't allow online sells, not in the states anyway. Miniature Market actually dropped them a few years ago, you used to be able to call in and order stuff at 25% off. I think that's telling that a massive retailer like that just doesn't want to deal with them. Clearly they have come to conclusion that 40k is a bad product for their market. That's why I question whether GW actually understands the market fully, even if they do see the online as the future. At least not the American market, they seem to want to force you to buy local to them.

Lastly let me post on topic here, AoS has been very successful for my store. I don't think that is indicative of the greater market though, I stated before that we have a very casual player base that sort of eschews tournament play. They like the narrative experience. Even the 40k events we have are all narrative based. That's what they want, many of them even strongly state that GW games have no place in tournament play. So I cater to that. I think had I had a large tournament player base, especially a fantasy one, I would have pushed AoS considerably less and pushed KoW considerably more. I just think it's impossible to tell if AoS has been a failure in the greater market. Also what do we mean by failure, a failure for GW or a failure in relation to other games. I think that AoS could out sell KoW for instance and it's still possible it was a failure for GW. I'm not sure how much has been sunk into it by GW.

puree wrote:

If so, GW failed to get the key point that Kickstarters are pre-orders.

And I keep wondering whether those putting in their 'pre-order' realize that kickstarter is not a pre-order system but a way of contributing too something that may not succeed. It may not happen much, but I can never help but be amazed at kickstarters that go wrong and the reactions of those who were part of it, clearly not grasping that that it was not simply a pre-order system.

That is the theory. The practice is that wargamers see it as a pre-order system, then get angry when the project doesn't work out, as happens all too often. Anyway, part of the reason why Kickstarters are popular is because players can see what is going to be offered before it is available, which GW no longer allow you to do.

Back to the topic of points, as a long term historical (and SF/Modern) player, I have always played games with and without points with friends at home and at clubs.

I don't see why people buying things online should change the perception of whether points are good or bad. It seems to me that online is just a better version of old-fashioned mail order from magazine adverts.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Your right all we have is post like this

"AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW. "
"GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month"

Where you clearly blame GW, rather than taking responsibility as a business owner. Is blaming other companies par for the course? How is that smart business? Please explain

This is a supply issue, resulting from Games Workshop taking a few months off from supplying Mikhaila with new 40k releases. Mikhaila can't make Games Workshop produce new 40k releases to sell to him, so your attempts to blame him for GW's actions are absurd. Even if Mikhaila replaced those lost 40k sales with a substitute, that substitute is inevitably going to be inferior to the status quo, because if it wasn't then 40k would be the substitute and the other product would be the one he sells all the time.

I don't think it's a good idea or model to rely on new releases for the bulk of your sales for a miniatures game. New customers are preferable in my mind, note I count getting someone into a new army for a game they already play as part of that. I aim for at least 60% of my miniatures sales to come from new players, their buy in is higher and their subsequent purchases will be higher as well then say a customer that has been playing a miniatures game for a few years. This is especially so if you implement programs to achieve a high retention rate. This is do to the simple fact most people will just stop at a certain point with an army. Further GW hasn't always had such an aggressive release schedule. Just seems like a bad idea to bank on new releases.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea or model to rely on new releases for the bulk of your sales for a miniatures game. New customers are preferable in my mind, note I count getting someone into a new army for a game they already play as part of that.

DrNo is 100% correct here. Don't rely on the new stuff to excite your customers; rely on the stuff your new customers are going to need. A funny story: A few years ago, I worked for a game store that was trying to cater to a growing Warmachine crowd. The number one complaint from the customers was the lack of product; we didn't stock the starter boxes or important models for each faction, so the existing players had no choice but to direct new and potential players to the Internet to buy their models. Owner decides he's sick of hearing the complaints and wants to spend some money to stock Warmachine. I e-mail him my list of recommended products that I knew our customers would buy; starter boxes for new players, important units/solos for each of the factions that existing players would buy on a whim, etc.. Instead, the owner phones up his distributor and says "I want you to send me 4 copies of every new Privateer Press release going forward," thinking stocking miniatures was really that simple. This was back when Privateer Press was releasing the colossals and reboxing their cavalry. So we got 4 copies of some of the most expensive miniatures in their line that nobody wanted to buy locally at full MSRP; we didn't get any starter boxes or miniatures good for impulse buys. Long story short, the players were disgusted by the owner's ignorance and our store kinda became the laughing stock of the local miniatures scene. All of those players left to play at different stores that actually stocked the product they wanted and listened to their customers. As far as I know, that product is still on the shelf, at 30% off MSRP.

On topic, Age of Sigmar didn't fail locally as much as it didn't arrive at all. No one plays miniatures at the LGS; they don't even stock Games Workshop products there. It's just not as profitable as Magic. Of the other stores I've visited that do stock Games Workshop and have active miniatures players, I've heard that people have been buying it and are even playing games in the store. But it sounds like it's just small groups of friends that play other games together as well, like 40K. And I think that's what we're going to see with AoS; it's a game you play with your buddies, not a game that lends itself to pick-up games between strangers at the LGS. You need to have that one guy - that alpha gamer - who gets so excited about Age of Sigmar, that he's able to convince his friends to buy into it as well and show up to the store to play. If you don't have that guy in your store, the game's gonna flop.

 Atolyr wrote:
You need to have that one guy - that alpha gamer - who gets so excited about Age of Sigmar, that he's able to convince his friends to buy into it as well and show up to the store to play. If you don't have that guy in your store, the game's gonna flop.

This is a really strong point. This is why there used to be Outriders, why PP has Pressgangers and WLG has Sarges. IMO this is necessary for pretty much any game that isn't 40k, including AoS. But if AoS is not meant for store play, I guess it would not make sense for GW to set up this kind of support. It's a really interesting line of thought. I wonder if this could be an issue with there being so little in the way of clubs here in the US? Or maybe the new Outrider is the one man of the one man store? It's really hard to say.

AoS did poorly around here. A few starter sets were bought by a handful of players and a few games were played by those guys but it just didn't catch on. I picked up my buddy's starter set for $75 after he built both sides but just couldn't bring himself to paint or put any more effort into the game. Not sure if he even rolled dice with those minis.

Once I get my stuff painted up I plan on bringing both sides to the LGS to try the game out.

GW still allows internet sales from other retailers in the US. They just can't have an online shopping cart. The Warstore still has a big section on their site explaining the process that includes 20% off---customers just have to call their order in and have to either use the warstore spreadsheet of what they offer and/or window shop on GW's site first to get an idea of what they want.

I'll be quick in this post since this is from my phone and I hate typing on this thing. In my own little section of NJ in Maplewood age of sigmar has died completely - what is ironic is that it sent even more people to play 8th edition warhammer in the store. Hell every Friday there are three tables of fantasy going with people waiting - and it's supposed to be 40k night

With talking with others as well as observing my own opinion - ALL GW had to do was fix two things: first, fix the magic spells rather than phase (essentially give maximum amount of dice for certain spells or tone down certain spells.... Purple sun cough cough - but keep the randomness (probably even generate psychic dice like 40k)); secondly, fix the idea of ranks giving stubborn (therefore cavalry still has an impact if it flank charges). Hell if anything we rarely house rule if at all that's how much we like 8th

Another thing they could have done to help age of sigmar would be to JUST GIVE SOME DAMN POINTS.

I just keep going back to the fact that the AOS starter is already at clearance pricing online. Seriously, you can get them for $60 on eBay right now. That's fairly solid evidence that the game has tanked.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Your right all we have is post like this

"AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW. "
"GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month"

Where you clearly blame GW, rather than taking responsibility as a business owner. Is blaming other companies par for the course? How is that smart business? Please explain

This is a supply issue, resulting from Games Workshop taking a few months off from supplying Mikhaila with new 40k releases. Mikhaila can't make Games Workshop produce new 40k releases to sell to him, so your attempts to blame him for GW's actions are absurd. Even if Mikhaila replaced those lost 40k sales with a substitute, that substitute is inevitably going to be inferior to the status quo, because if it wasn't then 40k would be the substitute and the other product would be the one he sells all the time.

I don't think it's a good idea or model to rely on new releases for the bulk of your sales for a miniatures game. New customers are preferable in my mind, note I count getting someone into a new army for a game they already play as part of that. I aim for at least 60% of my miniatures sales to come from new players, their buy in is higher and their subsequent purchases will be higher as well then say a customer that has been playing a miniatures game for a few years. This is especially so if you implement programs to achieve a high retention rate. This is do to the simple fact most people will just stop at a certain point with an army. Further GW hasn't always had such an aggressive release schedule. Just seems like a bad idea to bank on new releases.

While I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to build a business around the idea of new releases, isn't that where a huge amount of the money lies?

I know on video games the vast majority of profit for any given game comes in the first week. I'm sure wargaming isn't as extreme as video game publishers market more aggressively, but I'm sure sales are still skewed massively to the first week of release. From GW's own sale figures that were released from the chapterhouse case a decent chunk of sales (half or more) occur in the first year and if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's biased toward the first month. I know when the Imperial Knight came out my local FLGS had a stack of about 10 of them, most of them were gone in the first week, a couple sold in the 2nd week and the last 2 were sitting around for a few months.

It doesn't seem like a good idea to bank on new releases, but it also seems like a bad idea to not try and get the most out of them. That's why I hear wargames stores owners bitching about GW more than any other company when it comes to not getting enough advance information, not enough time to figure out how many to order and not good reliability on preorders. The only real complaints I hear about other companies are general supply issues, I'm sure that's partly because Australian distributors are struggling these days (I hear a lot of complaints from store owners about how customers can buy stuff online from overseas shipped to their door for a similar price to the store can get it wholesale from the local distributor AND get it more reliably as well).

As an aside, my local hobby store owner (not wargames, but remote control cars/planes, finescale models, etc) was talking about how the new stuff is often the thing that draws people in even if they end up buying something else. Things like having the newest scalextric set or airfix big kit in the window he gets people coming in to check it out and then somehow manages to sell the old scalextrix sets or an old airfix big kit that's been sitting on the shelves for years to them instead I know that's not as relevant to the discussion at hand but I found it interesting none the less.