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 think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

And they do need to support at least two.

Kirby's focus on the monoculture of WH40K is a good deal of what killed GW profits.

I like seeing GW broadening it's lines again. (I am really, really, really hoping that any reboot of Mordheim is set in the Old World, not Sigmar's Moist Nightmare. I will actually buy a new Mordheim, if it is in line with the old setting.)

As I mentioned - AoS is not competing with WHFB at its peak - the game had been in decline for a while. Locally, it was not AoS that killed the game, it was 8th edition.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that I like about AoS - and it is unfortunate, I like the direction that Rountree is taking GW, and I would reward such behavior... if GW had anything that I wanted. Bundles are a good direction to take, boardgames are a good direction to take, bringing back Specialist Games is a good direction to take.

While I would like to see improved rules, Kings of War (and perhaps 9th Age) means that the rules are covered - maybe not by GW, but miniatures gaming is all about the razor blades, not about the razors. The money is not in the rules, it is in the miniatures. If I buy GW miniatures to play Kings of War then I am still buying GW miniatures*.

I would have no problem with buying AoS figures and rebasing them for WoW - if I liked the danged figures. (But I don't, so I don't.)

Heck, Kings of War has me looking at Tomb Kings on eBay.

Ah, well. As it is, I don't like the setting for AoS, I do not like the rules for AoS, and I do not like the miniatures for AoS - the game, currently, has nothing for me.

The Auld Grump

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....

"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby

 Selym wrote:

Previous TW games had Warhammer mods that were much more extensive
Rome 2 was never liked, and being reminiscent of it is hardly a boon
There are far fewer factions to interact with
Half the playerbase feels that TW have gone off their rocker and forgone all sense of realism by making a fantasy game
TW tried to screw people over by making a faction that was guaranteed for release into a DLC

Those mods were just reskins of standard TW and there are numerous mods that significantly expand the unit roster for W:TW
Irrelevant to the original statement
Actually there are a lot of factions, probably about the same as in Shogun 2, if not more.
Irrelevant
Standard practice. The original Shogun had extra factions DLC, they were just called expansions then.

Warhammer:TW is very similar mechanically to Rome 2 and Shogun 2, if TW has been dumbed down (there is evidence for and against this) then the dumbing down happened years ago.

OT I know.

 Selym wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....

"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby

My friend once got told off for buying a litre of pva glue from a hobby store instead of paying more for much less from GW.

hobojebus wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....

"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby

My friend once got told off for buying a litre of pva glue from a hobby store instead of paying more for much less from GW.

I once got kicked out of a GW store for having a photo of non-GW miniatures on my phone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.

After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump

-

 Bottle wrote:
As similar as AoS and 40K may now seem it is still nowhere near how close WHFB and LOTR were.

They were completely different games....

Different ethos, different mechanics, different aesthetic...

They both had Orcs and guys with swords but that's about it.

-

I found the difference between WHFB, 40K and WHAoS confusing to understand. GW have started to clean it up by changing the packaging of 40K and AoS kits.

While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k

 Bottle wrote:

For a new customer walking in, especially a young one, the difference between WHFB and LOTR was confusing to understand.

You wold have to be very small to not notice the difference between blocks of models and single models.

-

It might have been seen as a strategic error by GW ever to have taken on the LoTR licence, but the game was very successful and helped to power GW's glory years back in the early 2000s.

Clearly if there was confusion between LoTR and WHFB back then it actually helped the company.

The more obvious distinction between AoS and LoTR would seem to argue for both games being core lines now.

However, as it seems that GW are having difficulty in properly supporting two core games, it may be wiser for them not to try and support three.

Games Workshop used to support a lot of games back in the day.

Given their size and their in-house capabilities, supporting a handful of games really shouldn't be an issue. I'd suggest it's a case of them choosing not to do so, rather than being unable to.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.

After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump

They are fundamentally the same game, just with slightly different figures. One is set in the far future with psychic magic and high tech weapons, one is set in a fantasy past with magic magic and low tech magic weapons. But beyond that it's really just a case of a large skirmish game that involves infantry, heroes and monsters, with a similar level of tactical depth.

herjan1987 wrote:
While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k

Er what? So?

 shinros wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:
While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k

Er what? So?

Yeah, I didn't quite get the relevance either.

Herzlos wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.

I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.

After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump

They are fundamentally the same game, just with slightly different figures. One is set in the far future with psychic magic and high tech weapons, one is set in a fantasy past with magic magic and low tech magic weapons. But beyond that it's really just a case of a large skirmish game that involves infantry, heroes and monsters, with a similar level of tactical depth.

Yeah I never said 40k and AoS were exactly alike, in fact I specifically said "While there's still differences between 40k and AoS". I simply make the point that I think they're going to appeal to the same people which makes the diversity of having 2 core games less useful.

There used to be a large number of WHFB who didn't really like 40k, maybe had small armies but never played it, and vice versa plenty of people who liked 40k but had no interest in WHFB. Anecdotally it seems a lot of the people who are interested in AoS are people who were already ardent 40k fans, while many WHFB fans have just moved on completely away from GW.

I have to say one of the reasons I didn't like AoS is because it is very similar to 40K, which I used to play until 6th edition spoilt it.

If GW introduced an AoSified edition of 40K, I would be all over it like a rash. But I'm not spending hundreds of pounds on fantasy figures for a substitute for the hundreds of pounds worth of 40K figures I already have.

 Bottle wrote:

*Sigh*... Not talking about the mechanics still. If you're new to wargaming they won't at a glance know that difference. Both were generic medieval fantasy, orcs and elves and dwarves with bows and swords and magic. When a new customer used to come in, the GW staffer would ask if they preferred fantasy with Magic and Dragons or Sci-Fi with Tanks and Robots, if they choose fantasy then were then asked if they'd prefer Lord of the Rings or GW's own fantasy game and if they replied with "Which one should I play?" or "What's the difference between them?" couldn't really be answered without going into needless detail or confusing them.

If that's true, your GW manager had a really poor understanding of the product lines.

LotR: A skirmish battle game set in J.R.R Tolkein's LotR universe, [short description of mechanics].

WHFB: A massed battle game set in GW's Warhammer universe, where players take up large armies lined up in formations and battle eachother for control of [Name of the WHFB world].

You can then go into an overview of the lores of each universe.

Simples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It might have been seen as a strategic error by GW ever to have taken on the LoTR licence, but the game was very successful and helped to power GW's glory years back in the early 2000s.

Clearly if there was confusion between LoTR and WHFB back then it actually helped the company.

The more obvious distinction between AoS and LoTR would seem to argue for both games being core lines now.

However, as it seems that GW are having difficulty in properly supporting two core games, it may be wiser for them not to try and support three.

They could have release years.

2017: Wh40k releases; new edition, full codex update, month-by-month model line releases/updates.

2018: LotR releases

2019: AoS Releases

2020: Wh40k Releases

That way, when you buy stuff, you can be sure to get a good 2-3 years out of it before anything changes.

I like the idea of stopping constant change but it doesn't seem realistic to not release anything for 40K for two to three years. New stuff doesn't have to change the game, though.

I do think GW have a fundamental problem with 40K. It has clearly been losing players and sales for several years, now, essentially since 6th edition was released, and this is despite -- or perhaps because of the huge amount of new stuff released (until the last year) that kept changing the game.

At any rate, if the product line that forms 80% of your company is losing users at 5% a year, something needs to be done.

 Selym wrote:
They could have release years.

This has been basically what they have had...Pre-AOS very little FB releases, lots of 40k releases. This year lots of AOS releases, thin on 40k.

What it resulted in? FB sales were murdered and this year 40k sales seems to have tanked big time.

No. They need to keep excitement going on _both_ systems every year.

40K sales have been declining since 6th edition if not before. I don't think it has a direct correlation to the number of new releases. It is to do with "quality" and price more than anything.

-

6th was a bad edition that followed a good one, 7th was salt in the wound it's no wonder people got disgruntled really.

Add ever increasing prices it's no wonder things are spiralling downwards.

In my opinion things started to go wrong with the rapid price increases of the late 2000s. That generated a lot of complaint and resentment.

GW have to some extent got around that in the past few years by associating price increases with new and/or revised kit releases. For example the cost of Tau Fire Warriors rose from £12 in 2004 to £22 (?) in 2012, but the new Fire Breacher kit is £30. It's a lot more expensive but at least it is a completely new sculpt and offers different options, though I know many players still don't think it is good VFM. Likewise the Imperial Knight Titans sold like hot cakes, despite a very high price tag.

The killer is that from 6th edition, not only did the rules change a lot in ways many veterans didn't like, but also, the cost of rulebooks increased massively. In particular, codexes doubled in price for no reason. As I've mentioned before in other threads, if I don't like the new rules, and the cost of the new books, pretty soon my existing army is out of date and I've got no reason to buy any new models for it.

From that point in time, GW's annual reports have been unable to obscure an obvious decline in 40K sales which continues in this latest report.

(There is inflation to think about as well, but of course while general price inflation in the UK economy continued quite rapidly between 2008 and 2014, wage inflation was basically stagnant, and real incomes fell rapidly behind the curve.)

GW has almost returned to its routes of being a mailorder (web order) that substitutes advertising costs with the costs of its stores. Its business plan states that it relies on its stores to generate new business.

Thats insane. I think there are plenty of kids and even a few adults that would realy enjoy the hobby but they'll never know about it unless one of their mates plays and drags them into a store.

They need to market their product even if this is online only marketing.

Cost increases however are still roughly in line with inflation. They were a very expensive hobby in the 90's and they are now still a very expensive hobby!