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.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Spoiler:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

The salt mines run deep, indeed. All joking aside, asking "can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" is stupid, because short of giving away 40k minis for free, some people will NEVER change their minds, no matter how much "good" GW does.

To be fair (I just went through this entire thread), the people who refuse to be pleased are a minority and there are plenty of people calling them out.

Calling them out? Get off your high horse. You are strawmanning yourself in to the ground. Peoples' reasoning for not thinking GW have improved run deeper than your silly stating...

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want". Worse still, there is some: "GW can never get better because they *insert grudge*".

...

Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

And then going on to quote people who made legitimate and well thought out reasons for feeling GW haven't really improved.

You created a strawman, pulled it down and now are acting like that strawman was the argument people were making. Stop. Please.

Sure, some people will never be happy.... but for feth's sake don't act like most people don't have good reasons for not being happy or not thinking GW are improving with silly arguments like that.


I think the answer to the OP's question is "no, we can't agree because different people have different metrics for judging improvement".

I think most people's metrics are similar we want more reasonable prices so the game starts growing again, and a balanced rule set that's not destroyed by codex power creep.

Current army deals compared to the early 2000's are a joke it's a token move, rules for recent games have all been bad it's actually painful watching people play lost patrol for example.

Until those things are fixed my money goes to their competition.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the answer to the OP's question is "no, we can't agree because different people have different metrics for judging improvement".

That there is the point, saying that MY metric is the only on that matters is what I'm calling out. There are several metrics for improvement and each metric is more important to some and less important to others. Sure.
Refusing to acknowledge that there has been any improvement because your particular metric was not addressed is not helpful. I'm not saying you have to be happy with the state of things or say that GW is perfect now, but they have been doing better. Simply dismissing that is salty and toxic.

I like how they went to the old White Dwarf format, introducing new factions, return of specialist games (still waiting) and so on.

But price is still a big issue, you can use all the honey to try and lure me, but if smaller companies can make comparable quality sculpts/kits in a lower price range, then i will rarely buy GW stuff.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I like how they went to the old White Dwarf format, introducing new factions, return of specialist games (still waiting) and so on.

But price is still a big issue, you can use all the honey to try and lure me, but if smaller companies can make comparable quality sculpts/kits in a lower price range, then i will rarely buy GW stuff.

Or instead of having cheaper prices, actually make it worth paying the prices GW ask for. Sadly I don't find the value that GW asks for so therefore it needs lower prices because the value is not there.

hobojebus wrote:
I think most people's metrics are similar we want more reasonable prices so the game starts growing again, and a balanced rule set that's not destroyed by codex power creep.

Current army deals compared to the early 2000's are a joke it's a token move, rules for recent games have all been bad it's actually painful watching people play lost patrol for example.

Until those things are fixed my money goes to their competition.

Isn't Lost Patrol more like the ONLY recent game with bad rules? Silver Tower, Gorechosen, Calth, Execution Force... all have good rules, if limited in some cases.

Davor wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I like how they went to the old White Dwarf format, introducing new factions, return of specialist games (still waiting) and so on.

But price is still a big issue, you can use all the honey to try and lure me, but if smaller companies can make comparable quality sculpts/kits in a lower price range, then i will rarely buy GW stuff.

Or instead of having cheaper prices, actually make it worth paying the prices GW ask for. Sadly I don't find the value that GW asks for so therefore it needs lower prices because the value is not there.

Honestly the biggest thing that bothers me about prices isn't the price for me, because I make enough money its not all that big of a deal, its just mild irritation at poor product value and unfair pricing.

The real thing that pains is that the Argonak who started playing warhammer back in the 90s could never afford it now. He'd be left out in the cold. What would that argonak do instead? I guess he'd go buy a few xwing ships and play that happily. But he'd never build up an army of dawi to fight against his good friend's undead horde. That would have been impossible.

Inflation since 2000 in US dollars is like 40%. What have GW prices done in that time? Its ludicrous.

 Mymearan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think most people's metrics are similar we want more reasonable prices so the game starts growing again, and a balanced rule set that's not destroyed by codex power creep.

Current army deals compared to the early 2000's are a joke it's a token move, rules for recent games have all been bad it's actually painful watching people play lost patrol for example.

Until those things are fixed my money goes to their competition.

Isn't Lost Patrol more like the ONLY recent game with bad rules? Silver Tower, Gorechosen, Calth, Execution Force... all have good rules, if limited in some cases.

Yes. Silver Tower especially has gotten good reviews from sites like shutupandsitdown and rockpapershotgun which don't have a Gw bias one way or the other.

 Mymearan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think most people's metrics are similar we want more reasonable prices so the game starts growing again, and a balanced rule set that's not destroyed by codex power creep.

Current army deals compared to the early 2000's are a joke it's a token move, rules for recent games have all been bad it's actually painful watching people play lost patrol for example.

Until those things are fixed my money goes to their competition.

Isn't Lost Patrol more like the ONLY recent game with bad rules? Silver Tower, Gorechosen, Calth, Execution Force... all have good rules, if limited in some cases.

Nope, Lost Patrol isn't the only one with questionable/bad rules - at least with my experience with Calth and Stormcloud Attack. Calth has issues with the random factor of its card mechanics & its specialist dice mechanics and Stormcloud Attack is quite unfair without a points system for the various vehicles (and the mechanics have some issues as well). Lost Patrol is the hands-down winner though for being unwinnable as the marine player. The other games are playable, but have enough internal issues that their acceptable play value is short-lived. I'd say the rules are "phoned in" - they are clearly designed to sell on the models, and the rules just give you something to do with the box contents.

huh I must be playing those boxed games wrong then, because I have found them to be pretty cool.

I mainly play the AOS games though. Silver Tower and Gorechosen.

Clearly they've improved over the last year.

There is still a long way to go, but this is a good step in the right direction.

I'm optimistic.

 auticus wrote:
huh I must be playing those boxed games wrong then, because I have found them to be pretty cool.

I mainly play the AOS games though. Silver Tower and Gorechosen.

who would have thought that people have different opinions about the same things? Its like they ain't been indoctrinated yet.

-

Just stumbled across this thread...

Would certainly agree that GW have gotten a lot better. As the OP mentioned, many of the new lines have been solid releases both model and rules-wise though they still do stink a little of a classic GW cash-grab.

The wide range of board games that they've brought out have also been nice to see, giving players new ways to get into or enjoy the hobby, and have normally come at fantastic value. Speaking of value, many of the recent releases and box sets (thinking of kill team in particular) have been exceptionally good value for money.

I'm mostly just happy that they "fixed" Age of Sigmar. I still don't forgive GW for abandoning traditional Warhammer - and won't until more people start playing Kings of War or 9th Age in my area - but it's good to have a solid and widely-used ruleset for my fantasy models and, I must admit, the ability to pretty much field anything and everything in games has allowed me to use the numerous miscellaneous models I have knocking about...

Yes, better. Wwwwaaaayyy the hell better.

Here's a though: if GW has gone 5 steps back with the last 6 years or so of games, 6 months of 2 steps forward shouldn't earn accolades. Granted steps forward are steps forward, but I'm waiting for them to at least be on an even keel with where they were before I start patting their backs, OR their wallets.

 The Shadow wrote:
The wide range of board games that they've brought out have also been nice to see, giving players new ways to get into or enjoy the hobby, and have normally come at fantastic value. Speaking of value, many of the recent releases and box sets (thinking of kill team in particular) have been exceptionally good value for money.

The 'good' value for money of the new sets like Start Collection is still subjective based on considering those prices in the vacuum of GW only. Once you look at what they get you relative to an actual army, and compared to the competition, they're still terribly expensive. Not to mention it's an illusion to new people - once they've started with these cheaper introductory products, the other products are more expensive than ever.

You keep saying that but outside of some outliers like Kharn in genreal newer kits are cheaper or the same price as the current range. Example would be the acolytes and deathwatch. 2 years ago those kits would have been $50 and now they are coming out at 35-40.

Also I'd argue that AoS getting started do provide solid value. Generally being between 25% and 50% of a tournamen level list.

If you're talking about Australia and nz again then I canthink say but it's currently solidly cheaper on new releases than it has been and the upward pricing seems to have finally peaked and started to slowly roll back.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You keep saying that but outside of some outliers like Kharn in genreal newer kits are cheaper or the same price as the current range. Example would be the acolytes and deathwatch. 2 years ago those kits would have been $50 and now they are coming out at 35-40.

$50 is the Terminator price, Deathwatch never would have come out at $50 unless you can show me a similar kit for that price?

It's a 2 full size sprue kit elite infantry kit, so your comparison would probably be something like the Grey Knight models which are $33. Devestators are $46, but they're a 3 full size sprue kit (as are Terminators). Assault Marines are $41 for 2 sprues, but GW seem to classify them as larger models so charge more for them, the comparable Deathwatch equivalent is $45 but comes with a small upgrade sprue. The Ad Mech 5 man squads are $41 and $46, I'm not sure if they're slightly larger sprues. Harlequins dance in at $40 for 6. Then you have crazy stuff like Wulfen, $60 for 5 models, though I guess it's at least 3 sprues but it's still terrible.

That's just the ~5 man elite units. Monopose characters have been coming out at $30 for a single sprue model which is more expensive than resin, plastic or metal characters used to be. The old plastic Space Marine Commander came out on 2 small plastic sprues with actual options and not monopose and currently is on GW's site for only $22. The old Orc Warboss kit is $30 and comes with parts to make 2 models, a mounted Warboss and one on foot including weapon options and a BSB option.

Looking around I think the best you could say is they've plateaued, but plateaued at a high price and still have the odd outlier crazy priced kit.

Last year we had Vulkite Berzerkers at $60US for 10. If we plateaued the Acolytes would also be that price.

I'm not that familiar with the Genestealer Cult models, but acolytes are $40 for a 5 man unit with 2 sprues, so I guess that'd put them on par with Scions that were $35 for 5 man sized elites on 2 sprues.

The Neophytes are $40 for 10 models on 2 sprues, I'm trying to think what GW have released more than a year ago that would compare to that.

Vulkite Berzerkers are 10 models on 3 sprues, but I try and not draw comparisons between 40k and AoS because it seems like maybe GW went for a lower model count with AoS which would justify a higher relative price (of course it's higher relative to something that's already really quite expensive so it definitely doesn't look good).

EDIT: Not all sprues are the same size, but generally I think GW sprues designed to fit in the same sized box tend to be similar size.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not that familiar with the Genestealer Cult models, but acolytes are $40 for a 5 man unit with 2 sprues, so I guess that'd put them on par with Scions that were $35 for 5 man sized elites on 2 sprues.

The Neophytes are $40 for 10 models on 2 sprues, I'm trying to think what GW have released more than a year ago that would compare to that.

Vulkite Berzerkers are 10 models on 3 sprues, but I try and not draw comparisons between 40k and AoS because it seems like maybe GW went for a lower model count with AoS which would justify a higher relative price (of course it's higher relative to something that's already really quite expensive so it definitely doesn't look good).

EDIT: Not all sprues are the same size, but generally I think GW sprues designed to fit in the same sized box tend to be similar size.

Except the Scions were a 2014 release and GW as sending prices skyrocketing with each new release. Also the Hybrids are larger than normal human models. A closer comparison would be the Sicarian Ruststalkers for $46US.

If you want an exact apples to apples comparison. Archaon and the Varanguard last year were $165 and $100 respectively. The recent Ironjaw release saw the Mawcrusher for $110 and the Gore-gruntas for $79. Same model count, same size sprues and sprue counts in each comparable kit.

Prices have been trending downward from their peaks of last year.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
You keep saying that but outside of some outliers like Kharn in genreal newer kits are cheaper or the same price as the current range. Example would be the acolytes and deathwatch. 2 years ago those kits would have been $50 and now they are coming out at 35-40.

$50 is the Terminator price, Deathwatch never would have come out at $50 unless you can show me a similar kit for that price?

It's a 2 full size sprue kit elite infantry kit, so your comparison would probably be something like the Grey Knight models which are $33. Devestators are $46, but they're a 3 full size sprue kit (as are Terminators). Assault Marines are $41 for 2 sprues, but GW seem to classify them as larger models so charge more for them, the comparable Deathwatch equivalent is $45 but comes with a small upgrade sprue. The Ad Mech 5 man squads are $41 and $46, I'm not sure if they're slightly larger sprues. Harlequins dance in at $40 for 6. Then you have crazy stuff like Wulfen, $60 for 5 models, though I guess it's at least 3 sprues but it's still terrible.

That's just the ~5 man elite units. Monopose characters have been coming out at $30 for a single sprue model which is more expensive than resin, plastic or metal characters used to be. The old plastic Space Marine Commander came out on 2 small plastic sprues with actual options and not monopose and currently is on GW's site for only $22. The old Orc Warboss kit is $30 and comes with parts to make 2 models, a mounted Warboss and one on foot including weapon options and a BSB option.

Looking around I think the best you could say is they've plateaued, but plateaued at a high price and still have the odd outlier crazy priced kit.

The most direct comparison to Deathwatch (and the kit he was most likely referring to) are Sternguard, which are $50 for two sprues. That's why the Deathwatch price was a pleasant surprise.

 silent25 wrote:
Except the Scions were a 2014 release and GW as sending prices skyrocketing with each new release. Also the Hybrids are larger than normal human models. A closer comparison would be the Sicarian Ruststalkers for $46US.

The Sicarians are on 40mm bases and the Acolytes on 32mm bases, I don't think they're all that great of a comparison.

If you want an exact apples to apples comparison. Archaon and the Varanguard last year were $165 and $100 respectively. The recent Ironjaw release saw the Mawcrusher for $110 and the Gore-gruntas for $79. Same model count, same size sprues and sprue counts in each comparable kit.

True. Though perhaps I was a bit simplistic in my previous post, GW's pricing system has never at any point in history been simple, things like how imposing the finished model looks and how many points it's worth also play in to how much they end up charging for stuff. Maybe GW have decided the prices of those things were way too whacky or maybe their pricing formula just resulted in the Orcs coming out cheaper.

It's unfortunate GW don't reduce the prices on kits because it would be nice to see them knock $20 off the Wulfen (or whatever) if they've realised they priced them stupidly to begin with.

It's also unfortunate that they've completely messed up their regional pricing and that even their good deals like Start Collecting boxes aren't really all that cheap in the grand scheme of things (only cheap next to other GW models).

Who reeally cares how many sprues are in a box? half of the parts aren't even used for one of the two possible builds.
So thats 50$ for 5 miniatures.
5 plastic miniatures.

No really, 50$ for 5 plastic miniatures.

RoninXiC wrote:
Who reeally cares how many sprues are in a box? half of the parts aren't even used for one of the two possible builds.
So thats 50$ for 5 miniatures.
5 plastic miniatures.

No really, 50$ for 5 plastic miniatures.

Yet you are obviously willed to shell out 40 $ for 3 (three) resin minis as well... so pricing don't seem to be the overall problem ..

I'm actually willing to pay a lot more. But material cost is the second most important part of the price of the mini (sculpters).

If you can print something for pennies or need several $ to get it cast... yeah; I am willing to put that into consideration.

RoninXiC wrote:
I'm actually willing to pay a lot more. But material cost is the second most important part of the price of the mini (sculpters).

If you can print something for pennies or need several $ to get it cast... yeah; I am willing to put that into consideration.

May I ask why? When painted and in the cabinet I actually don't see the material in itself anymore.

Honestly I will pay more for plastic than any other material. Ease of assembly, avoidance of misscasts air bubbles etc and of course ease of conversion makes plastic a far better material for me. I'm not going to buy Leman Russ, but if they recast it in plastic and charged more, I probably would. It would be easy to fix that problematic leg.

SKR.HH wrote:
May I ask why? When painted and in the cabinet I actually don't see the material in itself anymore.

Sure you do. Well-cast resin models will always look better than plastic. Plastic will always look better than finecast (not that you'd ever have a successfully built and painted finecast model). The higher costs of superior materials translate to increased costs. And then there's the willingness to produce the model in the first place. If I have a choice of paying more for superior materials vs. not getting the model at all because the profit margin isn't good enough to put it into production then I'll pay it.