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.

I must admit GW has been rather self-fulfilling as of late to me: other than the models I do not see much all that compelling to buy.

I hope specialist games can at least shine-up some old games that still have some game design spark. Updates to old models could be a great thing.

Might as well leverage what they have chosen to be good at now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

So essentially, all those people who pinned their hope's on SG (if that recent thread is anything to go by) are going to be very disappointed?

And to think that the naysayers shot me down in flames for saying that

As the originator of that thread I don't think that anyone was pinning their hopes on whatever it is that GW is going to be doing with the former SGs, I'm most certainly not. It is simply a possible sign of change for the better at GW towers.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why can't they just do limited production runs annually?

i.e. "In 2015 we sold 10,000 copies of Space Hulk. In 2016 we'll print 12,000 copies."

etc.

I don't understand why they decide to stop selling popular products. They did this with a lot of those limited edition terrain kits. They've already made the molds, so why not keep on producing them every year, but just be a little cautious to make sure they don't over produce?

In fact they do this with the massive Smaug model for the Hobbit SBG. It frequently sells out, then comes back a few months later. Or is that not the same thing?

Agreed. I wish they would issue another run of the Stormclaw box set. It sold out the first day on the website. There are a few copies floating around eBay, etc., but seriously -- why not issue another print run when the first sells out?

That was article was a great read. Thanks for forwarding it on, Puffin!

I see that he didn't like the move away from 28mm and the transition from single-piece to complex miniatures. As much as I like Rick Priestly and what he did for one of my favorite hobbies, I personally disagree with both of these sentiments -- I like the introduction of larger units, maybe because I have more than a thousand 28mm models painted already, but also because it combines some of the fun aspects of scale models into the miniature wargaming hobby.

Also, in 28mm, I highly prefer the more complex units over the single-piece or snapfit sculpts. Again, possibly because I've done a ton of single piece models, but also because I just marvel at how they "open up" the model and allow wide spaces between things like the cloak and the body or arms and wires.

I'm totally with him on the LoTR thing, where they built up a lot of staff over something they knew would fade with the movie excitement, and then got stuck with a big infrastructure. Personally, I think Rick Priestly will be happier in a smaller company driven more by creative types and doing what you want to do, rather than by sales and stakeholders, which is something I can most definitely sympathize with.

 Talizvar wrote:
I must admit GW has been rather self-fulfilling as of late to me: other than the models I do not see much all that compelling to buy.

I agree with you, to a large extent. But models have always been 90% of my hobby spending anyhow I mean, there's models, the occasional rules, some magazines, and some consumables (like paint). But models are the lions share of where the money goes, and what I get most excited about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cleatus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why can't they just do limited production runs annually?

i.e. "In 2015 we sold 10,000 copies of Space Hulk. In 2016 we'll print 12,000 copies."

etc.

I don't understand why they decide to stop selling popular products. They did this with a lot of those limited edition terrain kits. They've already made the molds, so why not keep on producing them every year, but just be a little cautious to make sure they don't over produce?

In fact they do this with the massive Smaug model for the Hobbit SBG. It frequently sells out, then comes back a few months later. Or is that not the same thing?

Agreed. I wish they would issue another run of the Stormclaw box set. It sold out the first day on the website. There are a few copies floating around eBay, etc., but seriously -- why not issue another print run when the first sells out?

I think the thought process is something like this -- they don't want to inventory the product, so whatever they make, they want to ensure it's sold. Whatever their run size is, they want to make sure that at the point they make it, there will be enough demand to sell out. The only way they can achieve this is to wait a few years before printings, so the demand builds up -- from new players, people who want another box, etc.

Stormclaw and Deathstorm weren't really the same thing. I think they were just ways to get rid of tons of extra sprues that weren't moving, personally Like standard Terminators... Also, but not improving the rules of those units (a great deal of stuff iin the 2 boxes were models with pretty crappy rules), it doesn't take away sales from anything else, either. It's not like you're going to make an army out of genestealers and forego buying that Hive Tyrant, no matter how many they give you, right?

 Xyxox wrote:
Since GW really have nothing resembling marketing, maybe the smartest move would have been to sell English versions in those countries and had the translation available as a download. Even when GorkaMorka was released, there was an internet.

Maybe that's how they'll handle the new SG stuff.

Products are produced in other languages than English? Why would someone do such a thing? Seems like a waste of money.

 Talys wrote:
That was article was a great read. Thanks for forwarding it on, Puffin!

I see that he didn't like the move away from 28mm and the transition from single-piece to complex miniatures. As much as I like Rick Priestly and what he did for one of my favorite hobbies, I personally disagree with both of these sentiments -- I like the introduction of larger units, maybe because I have more than a thousand 28mm models painted already, but also because it combines some of the fun aspects of scale models into the miniature wargaming hobby.

There was never anyting stopping players from having absolutely massive armies (save budget), even back in the days when the game didn't require it. In 3rd Ed, even though GW didn't produce titans and superheavies themselves, all the hard core enthusiasts had the armorcast ones, lovingly painted. The super fan players had that famously unweildy metal thunderhawk that you got for ordering the Space Marine chapter. IMHO, larger units, and by extension larger armies as the norm provide a barrier to entry which harms the hobby more than grows it.

 Talys wrote:
Also, in 28mm, I highly prefer the more complex units over the single-piece or snapfit sculpts. Again, possibly because I've done a ton of single piece models, but also because I just marvel at how they "open up" the model and allow wide spaces between things like the cloak and the body or arms and wires.

No argument that the multiparts are very dynamic, but considering the unit price that GW sets, and the volume required, I'm not sure the barrier to entry that they pose is healthy for GW. If I were a new player, after the "reasonable" deals present in the AoS starter, and the 40k/30k starters, paying $40-50 for an additional squad, let alone one dude is one heck of a rude awakening. Sure, Gaunt Summoner is cool, but IMHO, he's not $50cdn cool. I wonder how many Archaons they're going to sell at $200cdn... (Don't forget that you'll need to buy a Citadel carry case to transport your valuable investment and protect your paint work!!!!)

 Talys wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I must admit GW has been rather self-fulfilling as of late to me: other than the models I do not see much all that compelling to buy.

I agree with you, to a large extent. But models have always been 90% of my hobby spending anyhow I mean, there's models, the occasional rules, some magazines, and some consumables (like paint). But models are the lions share of where the money goes, and what I get most excited about.

I find myself increasingly more into the other camp.
It used to be all about the models for me and then I wanted a way to play with them so tabletop was an awesome fit.
Now I like my game more than the models (but it sure helps!).

I am finding many of the models oversized and that every model is a hero rather ... tiring... does that make sense?
It is harder for me to turn a blind eye since they do not represent some cool thing they do on the tabletop that is turning into so much derp.
I almost need to justify the "Movie Space Marine" list being dragged out: http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2011/6/moviemarines-01194024.pdf

I have found Bolt Action rather refreshing for getting those little guys made and painted.
Just getting into touching up the various FFG Armada and X-wing models for fun.

Everyone has their own taste, what esthetics they are drawn to.
I am still quite proud of some paint jobs of GW models I have done and I have MANY more still to do.
I think this is the longest time I have gone (longer than 6 months.... Skitarii release?) and have not bought a single GW model.

I think his comment on the miniatures is the most professional and pragmatic I have heard for the models.

What he said is, he does not like the scale creep (not bigger models, but models getting bigger) and feels that the cool factor of multipart models is not enough to offset the cost of manufacture and barrier of entry for newcommers due to complexity.

And indeed the LOTR models were good in scale and achieved nice detail with few parts making them great for newcomers.

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely agree, it gradually lost the tongue-in-cheek side and became far too po-faced and serious.

Depends. Do you consider things like Murderfang the Murderdreadnought with murderfist from planet murder who murder people to satisfy his murderlust, or Santa Space Wolf in his anti-grav sleigh tracted by wolf because WOLF WOLF WOLFY MCWOLF to be serious or tongue-in-check?

 Bottle wrote:
Somewhere in France there is a warehouse piled high with Le Gorc au Morc :p

It was Gorkamorka even on the French translation, sorry .

@keezus - I totally hear what you're saying about barriers to entry. The way I see it, 40k as GW envisions it, and as most veterans enjoy it, is a hobby that not only ultimately costs hundreds of dollars, but also hundreds upon hundreds of hours to have a nice looking army. Or even an *assembled* army. It definitely requires a high level of dedication, which is something that won't appeal to a lot of people for many reasons.

My newest faction -- Blood angels, ironically, my first faction from 25+ years ago -- is one year in the making so far, with hundreds of hours spent, and I'm probably only about halfway to playable. Most of these models aren't planned for play until late 2016 or 2017. I get that this isn't for a lot of peeps (but I do spend more time on each model than most, too).

In contrast, AoS requires very little dedication, but it is a tough game to play with total strangers in pickups and not the easiest thing to arrange tournaments for.

In the days of Ral Partha minis and chainmail we bought miniatures that were instantly ready to play (you didn't even need to attach them to bases), and maybe painted them years later. Old warhammer/40k was not much different, and although it was expensive, it didn't have the time element, which I think is a barrier to many.

I think that WMH (or xwing) follows this pattern much more closely, and irs emphasis on pickup and tournament play make it more attractive to some.

I do not think it makes 40k or AoS superior or inferior -- just different, and appealing to a different sort of nerd

Oh, also, when I meant bigger, I didn't mean more models (though that is true too); I meant physically bigger, from dreadnought sized to the size of scale model kits to Gundam and larger. I enjoy those kits because as much as I love 28mm, I've painted so darn many of 'em through the years, and there's rarely something that is truly exceptional and different in the cleverness of its sculpt and pose, like the admech Dominus, or the lantern-bearing winged Prosecutor (neither of which are really 28mm anyways).

 Talys wrote:
I think that WMH (or xwing) follows this pattern much more closely, and irs emphasis on pickup and tournament play make it more attractive to some.

At the risk of going a little OT, WMH is getting horribly bloated. The game IMHO very badly needs a MK2.5 or possibly a straight up MK3.

 Talys wrote:
Oh, also, when I meant bigger, I didn't mean more models (though that is true too); I meant physically bigger, from dreadnought sized to the size of scale model kits to Gundam and larger. I enjoy those kits because as much as I love 28mm, I've painted so darn many of 'em through the years, and there's rarely something that is truly exceptional and different in the cleverness of its sculpt and pose, like the admech Dominus, or the lantern-bearing winged Prosecutor (neither of which are really 28mm anyways).

As a modeller and a conversion enthusiast, the new models really do excite the creative part of my brain. The prices on the other hand has pushed GW out of my hobby budget due to poor "hobby value" for my dollar. $40-50 per character is almost within $10 for Malifaux crew box or an Infinity starter. PP too as of late has become a bit rich for my blood, especially since I don't play regularly anymore. From a pure painting perspective, we really are spoiled for choice in this golden age of hobby products. Lots of amazing non-gaming miniatures are available from makers like Andrea Minatures, Nocturna Models, Fernando Ruiz among others... Wyrd and Kingdom Death plastics are really fantastic as well. GW really needs to take a real hard look at themselves if they think they sit upon the untouchable pinnacle of collectible miniatures. I think Rick Priestly is right about GW being lost in their business model, and the longer that GW is willfully blind to their actual market positioning, the worse off they are going to be.

 Talizvar wrote:

I am finding many of the models oversized and that every model is a hero rather ... tiring... does that make sense?

I gave up on 40k as a game when 3rd was released although in that time I have built 3 armies as modelling projects. A Catachan infantry Company using the 2nd ed metals that I bought when they were new, a Marine army using stater set minis mostly bought from Ebay and a Death Guard army with Traitor Guard allies also bought from Ebay/converted from stuff I already owned. Aside from a few Forge World odds and ends (The Death Guard Sorc and some Heresy Missile launchers) GW received no money from me what so ever.

There are 3 main reasons for this, firstly the sheer unsupportable cost of everything, the changing aesthetic and the increasing focus on large 'cool' models. If GW produced a quality product at a reasonable price and along the same lines as their output from the late 90's (suitably modernised) then I would still be buying stuff from them, even if their rules were still gak. As it is though I haven't bought so much as a paint pot from them since they stopped selling Ogryn flesh.

@Silent Puffin?: Well, we all find some point where we decide to move-on to something else, you found yours.
Changes made for the sake of trying to get more money than an actual improvement can be a bit wearing as well (or at least being crass and making no attempt to hide the fact).

@keezus: Yes, I think that is what worries GW (if anything) is if we compare the same amount of money for what we can get elsewhere and the "quality" of the GW product does not measure up to the comparable quality/quantity of a competitor product or other hobby expenses.

I just saw the new X-wing box game in a toy store no less with a nice folded heavy duty cardboard display with the contents there for anyone to try... talk about increasing accessibility to gaming.

@puffin & talivzar - definitely, 40k/aos is very pro-hero, IMO. These are worlds of heroes, immortals, and gods, after all, so if straight out firepower per square inch of table space is going to excite you, goblins and peasants will never be a match for Gods and 10,000 year old veterans that have been around half the galaxy. When you read the fluff, too -- no group of mere humans would dare to contest one of the Custodes. It's also a game setting where bigger is badder.

Not that there isn't a place for MSU, or a way for MSU to win . But part of it is also GW's strategy of extracting more money out of veterans -- you're just not going to sell vets a ton more basic grunts to replace their old basic grunts.. It's much easier to sell these people (who want to add to their already large army of grunts) a bigger robot or a bigger tank or a new must-have hero.

@keezus - I've heard the same about WMH, but I have barely played the current edition, so I can't really speak for myself. I just find myself drawn to the cool new hero models from PP, but there is no way to field them, so what I'm left with is an expensive set of shelf ornaments that were fun to paint

For Wyrd, I'm just not into 95% of what they make. Nothing wrong with their stuff, but steampunk meets horror is just not my thing, so I buy just stuff that looks straight SciFi or fantasy, generally that has a cool weapon, which isn't much.

I have to agree with Rick, 40K is going down the gakker. The blatant power creep, attempts to force the purchasing of new units, terrible game structure, inflated model counts and complete total and utter lack of balance are only becomng more and more noticeable. AoS is not doing any better either, even at my FLGS which is pro GW a lot of fantasy veterans (including myself) have turned elsewhere and as of this moment in time there are only two players. On a side note though Mordhiem has seen a boom in popularity.
And then there are the models. The ones that GW release may be well moulded and very crisp but they look terrible. Take those new chaos knoght thingies - they resemble children's toys. The trend towards this more.... I dont know, childish/video gameish style has really shown and the 40K ones have not been any better. And if that was not bad enough they want HOW MUCH?! for them (£60 for three? Screw you GW).

Long story short, Rick is right. And I hate to say this but as a long time fan of Games Workshop I am leaving this sinking ship.

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@


His whole "one piece models are superior to multi piece"


I mean really... wow, ok you can think that, but Id say you are wrong... one piece models are horrible to paint, hard to get details in, and mono pose... Ive painted GW models for over 14 years and the plastic kits just feel so damn nice to paint, especially in pieces, you can tell they were designed with the modeller/painter in mind.


Its one of the reasons why WMH models annoy me, so many mono pose models, and 90% of the models I really want to paint, Ill never get to use as I can only bring one caster at a time. Lots of the grunts in WMH range from terrible-ok, with the occasional really nice sculpt, but for the most part they are tedious to paint and lacking in visual appeal.


Pretty much every third party company out there, puppets war type stuff wyrd/scibor, and so on, have great models too! they are almost always as or more expensive then GW's, but never really get the amount of flak GW gets for its prices.

 easysauce wrote:

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@

But it was successful for several years while the movies were still current, at least in the UK. You seem to have a skewed perception of history.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@

But it was successful for several years while the movies were still current, at least in the UK. You seem to have a skewed perception of history.

No it was not, models sold for a short while, but no one played the game... might be a different case where you are specifically, but around here AOS is more popular then LOTR ever was... its still a running joke with staff and customers alike just how much of a waste of retail space LOTR was. Most people I talk to see LOTR as the worst move the company ever made.

 solkan wrote:
This is one of the parts that I thought was really interesting:

“But it ended up being one of the great dividing points of Games Workshop. We’d grown internationally at a very fast pace, and we had to deal with French, Spanish, Italian versions of the games. The print runs of the foreign language editions were always bigger than we could sell, and after several near-disasters where we’d printed way too many of something, GorkaMorka being a classic example, we’d nearly bankrupted the company.”

The death of specialist games by publication costs for the rest of Europe. That's not the reason I would have expected.

Not a surprise - it bears depressing similarities to what brought about the fall of TSR.

Market research is an up front cost and it is easy to think that you don't really need it, after all, you know your customers, right?

Thus, we have Kirby boasting that GW avoids that cost, because it is 'otiose in a niche market'.

The Auld Grump

 easysauce wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@

But it was successful for several years while the movies were still current, at least in the UK. You seem to have a skewed perception of history.

no they were not, models sold, but no one played the game... might be a different case where you are specifically, but around here AOS is more popular then LOTR ever was... its still a running joke with staff and customers alike just how much of a waste of retail space LOTR was.

America is not the centre of the universe. GW is a British company, the SBG did very well over a short period in Britain. Ergo its fair to say it was successful.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@

But it was successful for several years while the movies were still current, at least in the UK. You seem to have a skewed perception of history.

no they were not, models sold, but no one played the game... might be a different case where you are specifically, but around here AOS is more popular then LOTR ever was... its still a running joke with staff and customers alike just how much of a waste of retail space LOTR was.

America is not the centre of the universe.

Good thing Im not an American or from America then mate... Im a 1st gen immigrant from england living in a commonwealth country with the queen on its money, so if me being british is the requirement for having an opinion, then its worth just as much as yours.


LOTR was never played, never had any staying power at all... if the models sold for LOTR in a few years are "success" in your mind, then why are the many more models sold over a longer period of time for 40k not also "success"

THe company rick was with changed, hes obviously a bit bitter and not all people like change, I for one LOVE that 40k is more grimdark then uber silly, not everyone thinks that way and that is ok.

Nationality has nothing to do with it. You're missing the point.

Do you or do you not live in North America? (The continent, not the country).

The fact that the SBG wasn't popular in your own area does not negate the fact that it was very popular and successful in other areas.

LOTR was never played, never had any staying power at all... if the models sold for LOTR in a few years are "success" in your mind, then why are the many more models sold over a longer period of time for 40k not also "success"

I didn't say that. Of course 40K was successful, and more successful than LOTR - which, as a movie tie in product was always going to be short lived. But the fact that it was short lived does NOT change the fact that it was successful over that period.

Please don't use straw men.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I for one LOVE that 40k is more grimdark then uber silly, not everyone thinks that way and that is ok.

If Murder McMurder the Murder Dreadnought with Murderclaws from the planet Murder is your idea of GrimDark, I'd hate to see your idea of silly.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Nationality has nothing to do with it. You're missing the point.

Do you or do you not live in North America? (The continent, not the country).

The fact that the SBG wasn't popular in your own area does not negate the fact that it was very popular and successful in other areas.

LOTR was never played, never had any staying power at all... if the models sold for LOTR in a few years are "success" in your mind, then why are the many more models sold over a longer period of time for 40k not also "success"

I didn't say that. Of course 40K was successful, and more successful than LOTR - which, as a movie tie in product was always going to be short lived. But the fact that it was short lived does NOT change the fact that it was successful over that period.

You are the one who brought up (rudely) nationality like im some self centered yank who dismisses any non america centric ideas... dont bring it up yourself if it doesnt matter.

If you are going to try to argue it was sucessfull because in your local area it was, for a short time, then you have to accept that the converse is also true, that it was sucessfull where you live does not negate the fact that it was hugely unsuccessful in other areas.

One is being removed from GW stores, one is not. Just look at the tournament scenes for the three games and its clear which game lagged behind significantly.


If you set the bar so low for success for LOTR you have to admit that 40k/fantasy succeeded even more, ergo rick is incorrect in his assertation that what people want is more of LOTR style games/models

Since we both know 40k/fantasy is more sucessfull, then it just shows rick is off base with his assertions that LOTR is what people want more then 40k.

There is room for both styles after all... not mutually exclusive by any means

Didn't GW's annual reports show huge LOTR sales for the 3-4 years of the movies?

It may not have been a successful game, but people bought the product, in huge numbers. It was, by any definition, a success as a product line.

I think it's success was due to, you know, being miniatures for LOTR movies, not due to the decision to scale them down.

I lived in the Chicagoland region during the entire run of LoTR in GW. I visited five different GW shops regularly during that time. It was tough getting up a game of anything other than LoTR when the movies were coming out in those stores because the tables were always taken up with LoTR.

 easysauce wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

“When I did Lord of the Rings I redefined the miniatures to be 28mm again. I took them down in size and had single-piece models. That was part of the reason it was successful.”

I simply cannot take anything he says seriously if he believes this.....


If that is success id hate to see failure!@

But it was successful for several years while the movies were still current, at least in the UK. You seem to have a skewed perception of history.

No it was not, models sold for a short while, but no one played the game... might be a different case where you are specifically, but around here AOS is more popular then LOTR ever was... its still a running joke with staff and customers alike just how much of a waste of retail space LOTR was. Most people I talk to see LOTR as the worst move the company ever made.

Then you talk to some very strange people.

Locally, LotR did about a hundred times better than AoS seems likely to see. (I am being literal there - not exaggerating for the sake of hyperbole. LotR sold in Waldenbooks - and sold well.)

As for seeing failure... I am pretty sure that AoS does indeed qualify, in spite of your blanket approval for the game.

Your not liking LotR does not make it a failure.

Your liking AoS dos not make it a success.

I did not especially like LotR - the game was too simplistic for my tastes. But it did make a decent introduction to the hobby.

My not liking AoS is only a symptom of why the game is a failure - with that failure being summed up with 'it just does not sell all that well'.

If enough people liked the game, then my not liking it would not matter a jot - but there are enough people that dislike it, for largely the same reasons, that, on a local scale at least and national from most reports, that it is flagging mere months into its lifespan.

There are excellent games out there that I do not like - I cannot stand Dreadball - but my good lady is at the top of the league, and loves the game.

There are terrible games that I really enjoy - Black Death is a card game about the Bubonic Plague, a bit like Nuke War....

But when enough people dislike a game, and for similar reasons, the game is a failure, even if I personally really like the game.

The Auld Grump

Who said I liked AOS?

them's fighting words

I just stated it was more popular already then LOTR ever was around *here*.

The fact, and my point, remains that whatever success LOTR did or did not have, it is

A: gone now

and

B: was not due to scaled down mono pose models.

 easysauce wrote:
You are the one who brought up (rudely) nationality like im some self centered yank who dismisses any non america centric ideas... dont bring it up yourself if it doesnt matter.

I brought it up because you were insisting that the games popularity or lack thereof in America/Canada/wherever is the only barometer by which it can be judged.

If you are going to try to argue it was sucessfull because in your local area it was, for a short time, then you have to accept that the converse is also true, that it was sucessfull where you live does not negate the fact that it was hugely unsuccessful in other areas.

Thats what YOU were doing. Are you just parroting my own posts back at me now? YES, it was probably unpopular in the USA. But unpopular =/= unsuccessful. You yourself admitted that it sold well, even if it wasn't played very much. My point was, GW is a British company. The SBG did well in Britain, well enough to justify retaining the LOTR licence for the better part of two decades. Ergo its fair to say it was a success overall, even if it was a qualified and temporary success.

One is being removed from GW stores, one is not. Just look at the tournament scenes for the three games and its clear which game lagged behind significantly.

So what?

The SBG is making a moderate resurgence in Europe thanks to the dedication of the independent community , and the community is growing with several new tournaments across Europe despite the lack of support from GW. At this rate it'll end up like Blood Bowl - unsupported, with most of the range OOP, but a dedicated hardcore community.

Is the Age of Sigmar tournament scene growing? Is it in a healthy state?

The reason Age of Sigmar isn't being removed from shelves is because its only just been released, its still brand new. The bigwigs in GW don't yet want to admit they made a mistake - they're in denial and doubling down. Give it another 2 or 3 years and I wouldn't be surprised if AOS gets a re-launch (Warhammer 9th ed? AOS 2nd Ed?) or gets marginalized in favour of 40K.

If you set the bar so low for success for LOTR you have to admit that 40k/fantasy succeeded even more, ergo rick is incorrect in his assertation that what people want is more of LOTR style games/models

Since we both know 40k/fantasy is more sucessfull, then it just shows rick is off base with his assertions that LOTR is what people want more then 40k.

I'm not talking about Rick Priestley and his assertions, I'm disagreeing with your opinion that the SBG was an abject failure overall because you personally did not see it played very much in your own area.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:


The fact, and my point, remains that whatever success LOTR did or did not have, it is

A: gone now

No, thats not at all what you were saying. You were outright denying that the SBG was ever successful.

B: was not due to scaled down mono pose models.

That at least I can agree with. The game was popular because it was tied to a wildly popular movie franchise, was a well written game quick to learn, with cheap miniatures and a small skirmish scale that did not require huge expensive armies which meant a low barrier to entry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a personal anecdote...The LOTR SBG is what introduced me to miniature wargaming ~2003 at the age of 12. I was at a christian youth camp, when a friend got out his Return of the King starter set and played a game with me. I was hooked from that moment on and have been playing for the 12 years since.

I started 40K during 5th Ed in ~2008, and played it for a few years...but by the time 6th Ed came out I was already disillusioned. I haven't played 40K since 2012. I've now gone back to LOTR SBG, attend 2 - 3 tournaments a year, and have even begun adapting my miniature collections to run a D&D 5e campaign at my local club (which gives me an excuse to collect even more of the LOTR range before it goes OOP).

I have no regrets.

-

 Polonius wrote:
Didn't GW's annual reports show huge LOTR sales for the 3-4 years of the movies?

It may not have been a successful game, but people bought the product, in huge numbers. It was, by any definition, a success as a product line.

I think it's success was due to, you know, being miniatures for LOTR movies, not due to the decision to scale them down.

The game appealed to a new target demographic - fans of the Lord of the Rings films (myself included). These people weren't GW veterans, they may not even have been wargamers. The SBG introduced this new demographic to wargaming in general, and to the rest of Gamesworkshop's product lines. For 5 years I played only the SBG, but I DEVOURED White Dwarf, every last page. I loved reading battle reports, and painting guides, and conversion corners for Warhammer 40K, Fantasy and especially Necromunda (which was sadly already on its way out).

I've always perceived the phlegm filled vitriol directed against the SBG over the years as sour grapes from Warhammer fans who were bitter that resources were being devoted to a game that they didn't personally want. GW got fat and rich off the back of Lord of the Rings, and was able to invest those profits back into the company and expand its Warhammer lines.

Ingrates.