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.

FireSkullz2 wrote:
Very interesting, as a new player who has seen all these things and heard people talk of the "glory days". This gave me some very interesting insight into the past.... And hearing all that from the creators of the game and one of the founders of GW... Wow.

Dude, check out any of the rulebooks before 6th, before they forced apoc on everyone. Check the terrain section in the 5th ed book, there's like actual terrain rules in there. The game really has gone downhill for a lot of vets, a lot of the people I played in prior editions have moved on on account of just how much gw has changed sadly.

 Da Boss wrote:
On the monopose thing, I really think it's easy for those who like multipart kits to feel that they are the "norm", but there are probably quite a lot of people who don't really enjoy assembly or conversions. (I'm one of them!)

I like monopose for bulk armies (like my IG and Eldar):
1. minimal prep to assemble speeds getting dozens of models on the board faster; and
2. true 3-D undercuts look better - something you can't do in plastic without more and more parts.
3. weight - the vast bulk of my monopose is metal, and that heft is nice.

For machines and large models, I like multipart plastic. Much lighter, and easier to build big, without fear of gravity death.

That said, I think Priestley claiming that his input on models being "true" 28mm being a key reason for LOTR SBG success is typical Priestley arrogance, and consistent with why GoA died when the funding premise was "because Priestley"..

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've submitted annual returns for a limited company. They have to cover the basics, like balance sheet and P&L.

I haven't had to do one, nor studied up on company accounting and law, since the mid-2000s.

Well sure. Everyone has to for tax purposes. But can someone else that you don't authorize get a copy of it? That's the crux of it.
.

Yes, people can get the company accounts and annual returns. It costs £1 at Companies House.

You can get all the detail on any company from an number of financial services companies. I for example use Dunn & Bradstreet.

Information is updated as accounts are submitted (not 2ys old?). I ordinarily use this to adds the strength of companies (and Clients for that matter) before conducting business with them.

This information includes gross and net assests, profits, turnover, principle owners/shareholders and directors (and their other associations), corporate linkages, average payment settlement, current/previous court injunctions etc. Of course all of this is already assessed and the reports with indicators for financial strength, probability of failure etc.

Business trade here on the basis of honesty or at least the appearance of it so not a competitive disadvantage at all.

 Talys wrote:
A lot of it is how you perceive the kit, and what you want to do with it. I think the more time you plan on working on it, the more value you associate with the model (because, after all, your own time has some value too). So if I'm only going to spend 1 hour on a model, I would want to spend less on the model than if I were going to spend 30 hours on it, because in the latter case, it's more important to me that the model be as close to perfect as possible. To take it to an extreme If I plan to spend 500 hours on a competition grade model, the actual price of the model becomes nearly irrelevant -- would I pay $50 to get the perfect axe for that competition model? You betcha. But if it's going to be a grunt that I'm going to spend 30 seconds to drybrush, I want that part to be about $0.05 (or some little fraction of a kit that's good for some sorts of other things).

I can't agree with this. Based on your own formula of: "hobby value" is a function of hours spent / cash value - a cheap model would still provide more value than an expensive one. Value is different things to different people. Value is highly dependent on the hobby budget of each person. While it is technically true that every hobbyist working on a conversion has a mental preparedness to spend more to achieve their vision - the amount of increase is limited by the amount of real world budget they are willing to put towards the project and the hobbyist's mental predisposition as to what is too much! The amount of time they are ready to sink into the project is irrelevant!

On a side note: (Personal aesthetic opinion only): Regarding competition painting. If I were going to spend the time painting a model for a competition - outside of Golden Demon which requires GW models, I'd be hard pressed to pick a GW product as my subject matter as the buy-in price is too high, and GW's slavish adherence to chunky heroic scale aesthetics (i.e. giant hands, chunky body proportions) is increasingly jarring when viewed against a field full of true-scale models.

-edit2-

GW's retraction of all hobby events back to the UK is a problem as well. I'm not a regular con attendee, but GW's official presence at Gencon in the exhibit hall was anemic and painting entries using their products only made up a small proportion of the entries. There was a decent sized area in the gaming hall for 40k/Fantasy, but I don't think this was organized by GW proper. This might be different at other shows however.

 Talys wrote:
<snip>But GW doesn't want to do any of that, and it doesn't even know what to do with the profit it does make (it just returns it to shareholders). Basically, they have all the downsides of being a public company, like having to show people their books and being stuck with all the regulatory overhead, without having need of any of the potential advantages.
The only thing GW got out of going public was an exit strategy for its founders -- which is a good reason for the founders, but not a great reason for the company or investors.

Actually this is a really handy way for the major shareholders such as Kirby to pay themselves through dividends.
I will have to dig a bit but I am pretty sure they actually took out loans to have enough cash on-hand to then hand-out dividends so they are VERY important so why else "just return it to shareholders"?
It is a fantastic way to pay yourself and take less of a tax hit since it is a less taxed means of income.
It is the only way stripping down the company and not making any real investment for the future makes any sense: they just want payment in the short term until "someone" is ready to retire and sell his stock and has no need of the inflated dividends.
Feel free to poke holes in this theory, it has held water for me for a couple years.

@Keezus - hmmm. Maybe I didn't describe it the right way, though I do get what you're saying.

If I'm painting a group of 50 grunts and spending 2 hours each on them, I will spend less money on each of those models than I would for the single model I plan to devote 100 (or more) hours on. If a unique weapon from another box, or a special shoulder pad, or a different head would make that model better, I wouldn't hesitate to spend an extra $20 or $40 to buy another kit and shelve everything but the one part -- because after all, I'm going to spend 98 more hours on the model, and I want it to express my imagination rather than be the product of what I can get for $5-$8.

In terms of cash value / hours spent value ratio, it's true that a cheaper model gives you better value no matter what, but happiness has to enter into that equation somewhere, and the ratio does get better as the hours spent goes up, because at some point, the number is so small that I really don't care. For instance, $50 / 100 hours = $0.50 / hour; $10 / 100 hours = $0.10 / hour. To me, whether I pay 50 cents or 10 cents each hour to derive enjoyment really makes zero difference. Even if one of the alternatives was free, I'd rather spend $0.50 each hour to complete something that I really loved, rather than to spend it on spare parts that I just had on the shelf.

In terms of picking the model you want to pick and the aesthetic that you like, well, of course, if you don't like GW models, you shouldn't spend anything at all on them They can't have it both ways, right? Either they attract the customers who like the heroic scale aesthetics, or the customers who like more "normal" types, and it's obvious which side of the fence they planted their flag.

 Crablezworth wrote:

FireSkullz2 wrote:
Very interesting, as a new player who has seen all these things and heard people talk of the "glory days". This gave me some very interesting insight into the past.... And hearing all that from the creators of the game and one of the founders of GW... Wow.

Dude, check out any of the rulebooks before 6th, before they forced apoc on everyone. Check the terrain section in the 5th ed book, there's like actual terrain rules in there. The game really has gone downhill for a lot of vets, a lot of the people I played in prior editions have moved on on account of just how much gw has changed sadly.

It is rather painful to look back on 5th rules, there is some detail there that is noticeably lacking in the later editions.
I do admit I did like them trying to get all the special rules listed better in the 6th edition but much was lost in the process and the ally team-ups was just messy.

Ah well, I am prejudiced due to having played heavily since 2nd edition (read back a bit in Rogue Trader).
I agree that something is lost with GW, they were more than willing to try out new rules and make mini-games for the fans to try-out and see if they have anything to them worth considering.

Engagement with the company providing the goods creates and bond/relationship with customer.
The GW these days seems to like keeping the customers at arm's length and just offer stuff to us and give no venue for feedback (unless we buy or sell shares).

 Talizvar wrote:

Ah well, I am prejudiced due to having played heavily since 2nd edition (read back a bit in Rogue Trader).
I agree that something is lost with GW, they were more than willing to try out new rules and make mini-games for the fans to try-out and see if they have anything to them worth considering.

Heh. My "favorite era" of the game was our custom, binder-sized rules for non-umpire play of Rogue Trader and second edition, but that's simply because I was in high school/college then, and 40k was brand new and different. Despite my enthusiasm for it then, if I took the same rules and type of models (increasing their quality to today's technology) and dropped it into 2015, I'd never even consider the game. Much in the same way that if a game came out today that was like original MtG, I'd think it was ridiculous, even though it was loads of fun back then, stupid cards, perfect combinations and all that allowed you to win without the other person ever having a turn, or ante.

@Talys: Happiness or customer satisfaction is different for different people. I look at it two ways:

1. Value added through multiple use: i.e. cool mini + game! This has been eroded as of late due to the increase in price for the "cool mini" and the general indifference by which GW treats their "game". ergo: value decreased over time.

2. Value added through artistic expression: i.e. cool mini +cooler! This is a bit more nebulous since it boils down to personal satisfaction and/or the purpose behind +cooler your "cool mini". It might be to enter a contest, it might be a business endeavor (pro-painting), it might be for self-relaxation. The amount of "value" one derives is entirely tied to the purpose. If you are a hard boiled exec, you might consider mini-painting some sort of therapy, and therefore, it's worth "unlimited" money. This is different to a starving artist who is trying to break into the pro-painted ranks and needs to watch their budget, even on the most ambitious projects.

 Talys wrote:
In terms of picking the model you want to pick and the aesthetic that you like, well, of course, if you don't like GW models, you shouldn't spend anything at all on them They can't have it both ways, right? Either they attract the customers who like the heroic scale aesthetics, or the customers who like more "normal" types, and it's obvious which side of the fence they planted their flag.

I don't mean to be contrary, but if GW's rules writing wasn't pants, they'd be maintaining a captive audience buying their models regardless of whether they liked the aesthetic or not! I own tons of models for "gaming" who's aesthetic I don't like... (I'm looking at you... full Protectorate of Menoth Army)... so while aesthetics are very important to those who are only hobbyists/painters... for anyone who also falls into the gamer camp, aesthetics are no longer the only (or the most important) factor!

-edit- to clarify my previous post: I think for competition painting, painters are painting for the judges... so in a way, this informs one's aesthetic choices to a degree. If a certain thing is in vogue (NMM, texture, TMM, freehand etc.), you can bet your bottom dollar that entries will strive to include them. I'm not really speaking so much of my own aesthetic choices, but where the industry in general is going, and what kind of models I've seen entered in open competition. There's awesome GW stuff... I'm actually really tempted to buy a box of Ogryn for fun... If they were $45 I would not have bat an eyelid... but they're not. They're over that $50 mental barrier I have for throw-away projects.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

FireSkullz2 wrote:
Very interesting, as a new player who has seen all these things and heard people talk of the "glory days". This gave me some very interesting insight into the past.... And hearing all that from the creators of the game and one of the founders of GW... Wow.

Dude, check out any of the rulebooks before 6th, before they forced apoc on everyone. Check the terrain section in the 5th ed book, there's like actual terrain rules in there. The game really has gone downhill for a lot of vets, a lot of the people I played in prior editions have moved on on account of just how much gw has changed sadly.

It is rather painful to look back on 5th rules, there is some detail there that is noticeably lacking in the later editions.
I do admit I did like them trying to get all the special rules listed better in the 6th edition but much was lost in the process and the ally team-ups was just messy.

Ah well, I am prejudiced due to having played heavily since 2nd edition (read back a bit in Rogue Trader).
I agree that something is lost with GW, they were more than willing to try out new rules and make mini-games for the fans to try-out and see if they have anything to them worth considering.

Engagement with the company providing the goods creates and bond/relationship with customer.
The GW these days seems to like keeping the customers at arm's length and just offer stuff to us and give no venue for feedback (unless we buy or sell shares).

One of the ways that smaller companies can shine, in comparison to larger ones.

On the Reaper forums there are people that argue with the official spokesperson - and he argues back.

I have had a question on the Paizo forums answered by the CEO of the company! (And Paizo is not a tiny company.)

With Mantic, Ronnie does a lot of the talking.

All three are excellent examples of a company engaging their audiences.

And, for what it is worth, I do not blame the accountants for what is happening to GW - Reaper is majority owned by accountants. (Pugh has done a few videos on Youtube about how the company got started, what's worked in the past, and what is likely to work in the future. He is a bean counter that really enjoys what he is doing, and the result has been a healthy company with a happy relationship with its customers.)

The Auld Grump

I'm more with Talys - if I need to spend more time on generics (IG Guardsmen), that's not as good. Better to spend the time on showcases (Eldar Wraithknight!).

 Talys wrote:
[
I'm not arguing that GW stock is a terrible buy, or that it's overpriced. It's okay. However, it's not going to make anyone huge bucks, because although it's a decent business, it has a very low ceiling due to a small market. Therefore, it makes it a terrible target for a hostile takeover. Because if you're going to go to all that effort (and risk), you want a much more significant potential payout.

You're missing out on the assets. Namely, a set of chain stores all over the country, a familiar brand name, and a dedicated HIPS facility. If I was a dedicated raw plastics company looking to expand further down the chain, or a toy company looking to expand onto the high street, it would be a logical place to start looking if the share price dived low enough.

What GW should consider is branching out, if they had any sense. Expanding into other toy/game lines, integrating backwards into plastics production, or acquiring a greater market share by buying into similar firms such as Hornby, etc. There's plenty of scope for GW to expand if you view things from a more corporate/business angle. But as things stand, their primary shareholder is Mr Kirby, who is completely risk averse, and only interested in things that can expand his share price/dividend payments in the short term. That's why GW have taken such a static consolidatory approach to business for such a long time. Not to say that businesses shouldn't have consolidatory periods (or they expand too fast and crash and burn), but GW hasn't done anything innovative since they first took on the LOTR license. And in attempting to safeguard a certain level of profitability, they've just ossified.

Mr Rountree has picked things up again slightly of late, but we've yet to see if this is a new approach or just another death spasm on GW' corporate asphyxiation. Time will tell.

 Ketara wrote:
GW hasn't done anything innovative since they first took on the LOTR license.

Aside from Knights and End Times AOS, no, nothing innovative...

Why everybody else just happens to be making identically awesomely huge, detailed plastic kits for all of their gaming lines, advancing the storyline in signficant ways, and transitioning to radically streamlined rulesets. GW is following the pack of sames...

Well Warmachine and Infinity all advance the storyline as a matter of course, so that's not new.

As for AOS? I think, generally, innovation needs to improve on what it replaces, so not sure how "innovative" AOS is.

As for Knights? What, exactly, is innovative about them? There's plenty of other systems doing massive models, there's plenty of manufacturers doing substantially more advanced plastic kits. If you're trying to argue that they're the first wargame company to do a large, essentially monopose, kit in plastic? Well, OK, but I don't see that as much to get excited about, and given the existence of the DFG Leviathan, not even much of an achievement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think you're mistaking "GW doing something GW haven't done before" with innovation.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Well Warmachine and Infinity all advance the storyline as a matter of course, so that's not new.

Just so we're clear, Infinity has not advanced their storyline at all. Seriously, nothing has advanced.

Campaign: Paradiso was more along the lines of something like Mont'ka/Kauyon, as the main rulebook and Human Sphere both had referenced the Paradiso Campaign before. It's why Croc Men were present in the main rulebook before Paradiso ever came out, despite being a unit formed from the remnants of a regiment that was decimated in the fighting for Paradiso.

The only thing they've done with their storyline was flesh things out and essentially make some revisions to bring the Tohaa in.

Additionally the book which WAS going to advance their storyline? It's been delayed no less than twice now, once with the release of N3 and now with the release of Human Sphere for N3.

WM and Inf look essentially similar to what has come before, not materially different from how 40k advances the timeline.

By definition, innovation is something new, and AoS is definitely new. For some, it's a clear improvement.

Nobody else is doing giant models in their games. Show me another gaming system selling something comparable to the IKT / WK / SS in WM / Inf / any other minis games, I'll wait. Second, the WK isn't monopose.

Third, the DFG Leviathan is awesome, but there's no game for it. When Wyrd / PP / Battlefront / make a comparably huge kit for their games, then you can talk.

Infinity isn't a £110 M international company.

Knights are not an innovation. They are another kit for 40K, with some rules.

End Times was not an innovation, it was a campaign for WHFB with some more kits that had some rules.

AoS isn't an innovation, it's an amalgam of 40K and WHFB, with simplified rules.

An innovation would be new board game with completely different rules. Dread Fleet, Assassinorum and Battle of Cattle are innovations. Not massive leaps forward, but something at least new to show for the 15 years of design work since LoTR was released.

A better innovation would be a worldwide campaign for 40K or AoS that had a strategic storyline that was affected by the results sent in by players. Controlled by a secure app, which authenticated your identity to prevent cheating, and allowed you to vote for where the results of tactical battles would translate into strategic gains.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
GW hasn't done anything innovative since they first took on the LOTR license.

Aside from Knights and End Times AOS, no, nothing innovative...

If those are "innovations" to you, then here's a shovel so you can get that bar out of the ground.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Nobody else is doing giant models in their games. Show me another gaming system selling something comparable to the IKT / WK / SS in WM / Inf / any other minis games, I'll wait.

Second, the WK isn't monopose.

Third, the DFG Leviathan is awesome, but there's no game for it. When Wyrd / PP / Battlefront / make a comparably huge kit for their games, then you can talk.

There's not a lot of companies making those large models because, generally, it's a stupid thing to do in 28mm. GW's trying to shove models that belonged in Epic into the ever-increasing bloated system that is 40k.

I don't know why you would bring Battlfront into the picture, because they're a 15mm company. Wyrd won't do it because they're tiny and Malifaux is a skirmish game. And PP has the Colossals/Gargantuans.

Additionally the book which WAS going to advance their storyline? It's been delayed no less than twice now, once with the release of N3 and now with the release of Human Sphere for N3.

Nevertheless, it's something they're intending to do, and the very fact they've even thought about it still underlines the point that GW doing it isn't the least innovative, which was the point I was refuting.

I don't count fluff changes as innovations. Anyone can write a story. GW can and have commissioned many authors to write stories for 40K, but if they are a game company I expect them to produce new games.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Nobody else is doing giant models in their games. Show me another gaming system selling something comparable to the IKT / WK / SS in WM / Inf / any other minis games, I'll wait.

WMH collossals came before Knights. (Model wise)

Mierce say high..







Automatically Appended Next Post:

By definition, innovation is something new

No, by definition, something innovative is something new that's never been done that way before. Hence we have words for "new" and a different word for "innovative."

Second, the WK isn't monopose.

No, but the "Knight" essentially is, which was your original comment. Wraithknight is an entirely different thing, but I'm still struggling to see the innovation?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nobody else is doing giant models in their games. Show me another gaming system selling something comparable to the IKT / WK / SS in WM / Inf / any other minis games, I'll wait. Second, the WK isn't monopose.

This really isn't a positive. I'm not doing Gundams for display, I'm doing fighters in an endless galactic war.

Wraith Knights are literally giant constructs. They're boring as all hell.

I think demanding a completely new game to call a company innovative is a bit of a high hurdle.

To me, the area in which GW has been most innovative over the last 10 years or so has been really expanding the size, complexlity, and level of detail in wargaming minis. Starting with the LOTR Oliphant, continuing the Baneblade/Stompa, and really reaching its peak lately, GW is making multiple massive plastic kits in a market where releasing a handful of plastic sprues a year is laudable.

That's genuinely innovative, at least in my book..

I wrote "Knights" as opposed to "Imperial Knight" specifically to include the WK, Stompa and SS models.

And the big plastics *are* innovative, given that nobody else was doing them in wargaming. Changing scale from squad-based is new and different. The Colossals don't count any more than the old Armorcast stuff.

Gw aren't really innovative, they are repetitive. They repeat what they do well and try to make it better each time. With 99% of the models they succeed, but it is just the old stuff remade. AoS has shown that, new worlds with the same characters, repetition. Rulewise, I guess improvement is in the eye of the beholder.

As long as they are making great kits though, there will always be a place for them.

 Polonius wrote:
I think demanding a completely new game to call a company innovative is a bit of a high hurdle.

To me, the area in which GW has been most innovative over the last 10 years or so has been really expanding the size, complexlity, and level of detail in wargaming minis. Starting with the LOTR Oliphant, continuing the Baneblade/Stompa, and really reaching its peak lately, GW is making multiple massive plastic kits in a market where releasing a handful of plastic sprues a year is laudable.

That's genuinely innovative, at least in my book..

Large plastic kits kitbashed into games unofficially by fans have been used in gaming almost as long as gaming has existed. Putting a corporate branding label consistent with the game they'll be used in isn't particularly innovative IMO. Even if it was actually an innovation to officially incorporate what folks were doing anyways unofficially then that "innovation" occurred two decades ago with resin (Armorcast) and almost a decade ago with plastics. At this point, it's at best a slow and steady iterative evolution as GW just tries to make it a smidge bigger each and every year with a proportionally larger price increase accompanying it.

But big plastics aren't actually making GW more money. I think RP's original point was that by going back to 28mm single pose miniatures the cost of the starter set was competitive in a toy/book store. This expanded GW's market considerably and, based on the records we have, was a high point for GW profitability.

GW's big plastics that everyone here seems to love may be innovative, but they're not expanding sales. LOTR, whether you love it or hate it, brought in a lot of new customers. Part of that was its simplicity (both for models and rules). GW's current innovations, however, aren't growing their business.

Big models in wargames aren't innovative. Firstly, it's not even a new idea. Secondly, to be innovative generally carries the connotation that it is more advanced or an improvement than what came before it, not simply "different". Most games simply choose not to have giant models for the sake of the game.

Having lots of big plastic kits in a wargame isn't innovative, big plastic kits have been around for decades and if your wargame is experiencing severe scale growth like 40k and AoS is doing then having big plastic kits in a wargame is simply a natural progression of the fact big plastic kits have always existed.