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.

Given their recent advances, they're definitely increasing sales volumes.

If that's not expanding, what is?

You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint.

while $60 on a box of minis I would build, paint and play in my existing army, on my personal hobby time, is a better way to spend my money

There's some sort of cognative dissonance going on here.

Not really. I don't paint everything I buy but I can still build it and play with it.

TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.

Well, we'll never know - because no other wargames company publishes their results.

We could turn to the ICV2 results, but we know for a fact their data is incomplete. We can extrapolate some information, but not enough to give safe conclusions. For instance, ICV2 doesn't include GW's direct sales in the US. Yes, we can work out roughly what's missing from that (compare GW's published figures for direct and third party in that territory), but without knowing the metrics and checking involved behind the ICV2 results, or how much more its reporting X-Wing to be selling, that gets us pretty much nowhere.

The only conclusion we can currently draw is that GW are taking in far more than they have in recent years. And that points solely to a greater interest in their product, no?

Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.

These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.

Well, we'll never know - because no other wargames company publishes their results.

We could turn to the ICV2 results, but we know for a fact their data is incomplete. We can extrapolate some information, but not enough to give safe conclusions. For instance, ICV2 doesn't include GW's direct sales in the US. Yes, we can work out roughly what's missing from that (compare GW's published figures for direct and third party in that territory), but without knowing the metrics and checking involved behind the ICV2 results, or how much more its reporting X-Wing to be selling, that gets us pretty much nowhere.

The only conclusion we can currently draw is that GW are taking in far more than they have in recent years. And that points solely to a greater interest in their product, no?

Which was precisely my point, we will never know, beyond educated guesswork, so to cite it as growing share is possibly erroneous. At best its speculative.

As it stands, they do appear to have grown ahead of the market (~30% for GW as opposed to 21% reported by ICV2 for tabletop gaming in general) but the information is too vague and incomplete to be precise about it.

Edit: Although with the tabletop market being estimated as $1.44bn by ICV2 in the US, in terms of raw currency it's still quite possible to argue that GW have still shrunk relative to the market.

 Mymearan wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.

These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.

One could argue that happy customers don't get to decide if the magic is magic or smoke and mirrors, because if it is smoke and mirrors, they fell for it.

Worth keeping in mind before you go and decide who is eligible to determine for themselves what GW is and is not.

Since we are talking about a company/customer relationship, it's very subjective anyway. Take your points. I could put a negative spin on most of them quite easily:

- Willingness to change rules at a whim allows them to release sloppy rules and patch them later, so they do
- They bin the disaster that was 7th ed just to release the disaster that is 8th ed
- They've created a working propaganda machine
- They spend so much time and effort on new things nobody asked for instead of releasing needed overhauls of core models
- While they try to cater to competitive play, bleed over from narrative parts means that they don't achieve any significant measure of balance

The only one I'm struggling with is good, free and easily available painting tutorials. Hard to find any fault with that.

Not that I necessarily hold these opinions (like I care about competitive play... GW can support that all day long an earn only a yawn from me), but they're plausible. This stuff is happening right now. And it's not even incompatible with your opinion, because it just takes the same thing and values it differently.

You say 'fell for it'....

It couldn't be that there is no one take on what pleases a Wargamer?

Me, I'm happy enough with GW's offerings, and I've been enjoying their greater efforts to engage with their fan base. In particular, I'm genuinely chuffed they're diversifying their stuff. Greater presence of females in models and background, and a wider variety of skin tones being painted.

To some, that may not mean a lot, or even anything. And fair enough. But to me, it suggests they've entered the 21st century, where it's not just middle class white males that enjoy nerdy things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You say 'fell for it'....

It couldn't be that there is no one take on what pleases a Wargamer?

That's exactly my point. We can look at the same thing and depending on our personal valuation, GW may be a great company or still the same money grubbing gak show.

Or anything in between, really. You can be like me and acknowledge all the changes for the better and still criticize them for things that did not improve. I find a number of things they do these days objectionable, but I still like a good many models they make and accordingly buy them. I'm part of the customers that made the last financial report the success it is.

Perhaps I misunderstood Mymearan or I'm focusing too much on a throwaway comment, but I object to the idea that anyone in the hobby is disqualified from holding an opinion on GW on such a subjective subject.

You can totally be satisfied with GW and emphasize the positives. No problem. All I'm saying is that you can look at all these positives and see something negative because these things affect you differently.

So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?

There's nothing fake or not authentic about the enjoyment you get putting some miniatures together, painting them and playing a game with them.

If GW sold someone miniatures and rules and they got exactly what they were looking for, then they didn't fall for anything. They got what they paid for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?

How would you go about distinguishing their intent? And if a particular part of what GW offers has been changed to what people want, how much does the intent matter to the end user under each entirely theoretical speculation?

GW is malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

vs

GW is not malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

Good luck with that distinction.

I really like what GW are currently doing. I'm excited for the games and releases, I like the fact that they are reaching out and interacting with the community. I do think some of the pricing is a little steep, but I don't find myself getting particularly worked up about it.

There are people who will complain regardless of what GW does. They could literally give models away for free and people would still complain.

Propaganda? GW as everything in this life, is not black or white.
In some cases it has got worse (All the strange and inconsistente no model-no rules that some times apply, others don't, other times you have GK GM in DK, etc...), in others it has remain the same (Prices), but in others, many others, it has improved, packs that lower the price point, social media, at least trying to put FAQ's and improve rules (One can say they do that because that way they can do sloppy rules. Well, they did sloppy rules before and you had to eat them 2-3 years, at least now they change them).

So "smoke and mirrors", at least to me, is just a pedantic phrase some people use to feel that they are more inteligent that the poor souls that can't see what they see. But at the end of the day, as every business, GW is not perfect, but isn't your friend. It offers a product and you need to value if you find it good.
Saying that price is all what matters isn't right. I'm more willing to pay X price if they threat me better, offer me other kind of bonuses, etc... than if they nearly call me stupid ("We have no gamers, only modelers") etc...

Basically, they're doing what they've always done. Absurdly high prices, awful rules with horrendous balance, scummy tactics like removing weapon options from Death Guard Terminators that people will have had on previous versions, removing rules for models that don't have rules for fear of stuff like Chapter House, etc.

The difference is they now practise a basic social media presence, telling us "We're your friends now! We're not those stinky old guys, we're different! Hehe, look at this whacky meme we guys know you find funny, Lol Failbaddon amirite? XDDD". They're still punching you in the stomach, just they're doing it with a smile on their face.

The thing is, people were so desperate to look for an excuse to get back into bed with GW that they - heck, including yours truly - fell for it. People have spent thousands on a hobby, so of course buyer's remorse is going to be a big thing. It's just that under Kirby/7th things were SO bad that all but the most diehard of fanboys couldn't take it anymore. So now they're practising "Look guys, we're NEW! And friendly! You can trust us!" despite puffing a lot of smoke and setting up a lot of mirrors, people fall for it hook, line and stinker. It worked, and now a whole lot more people are willing to defend absolutely anything 'nu'-GW does as "b-but this is the NEW Games Workshop! it's improved so much! W-why don't you give them a chance?!"

It's kind of genius in a way. Games Workshop was SO bad that actually TALKING to it's damn customers was considered such a monumentally massive improvement people are just shy of calling it a whole new company.

 Chamberlain wrote:
There's nothing fake or not authentic about the enjoyment you get putting some miniatures together, painting them and playing a game with them.

If GW sold someone miniatures and rules and they got exactly what they were looking for, then they didn't fall for anything. They got what they paid for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?

How would you go about distinguishing their intent? And if a particular part of what GW offers has been changed to what people want, how much does the intent matter to the end user under each entirely theoretical speculation?

GW is malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

vs

GW is not malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

Good luck with that distinction.

How would I go about it? By myself, for myself.

I wouldn't use your entirely theoretical speculation because you look at it from the wrong angle. And when I say wrong, I mean exclusively from my perspective. Whatever GW is (and it's not malicious, that's nonsense), it gives people what they want is the kind of thinking I don't subscribe to. First, it gives select people what they want. Not just people. This is easily proven because I don't get what I want, so asserting that regardless of any other circumstances people are getting what they want is false. Second, rigging the result to stay the same regardless of the outlook defies logic. If I were to assume GW was malicious, I'd have a hard time reaching the same conclusion as if GW were benign.

A more fitting line of thinking for a disgruntled old git like me would be:

GW is out to make money by cultivating its IP to preserve classic ideals and tries to please its core audience

versus

GW is out to make money by revising its IP to meet modern sentiments and tries to appeal to a wider audience

GW's goal isn't in doubt. There is no question as to the goals of a publicly traded company. It's about their methods and how they affect you. And that is entirely down to the individual. No matter how well GW is doing, no matter how many people buy more than they did before, no matter how many people are satisfied with GW, that's a question that only the individual can answer.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Basically, they're doing what they've always done. Absurdly high prices, awful rules with horrendous balance, scummy tactics like removing weapon options from Death Guard Terminators that people will have had on previous versions, removing rules for models that don't have rules for fear of stuff like Chapter House, etc.

...

It's kind of genius in a way. Games Workshop was SO bad that actually TALKING to it's damn customers was considered such a monumentally massive improvement people are just shy of calling it a whole new company.

"basically, they're doing what they've always done"

Isn't this the crux of it? Each person is going to have their pet issue and if GW has changed on it, then they'll think everything is changed and if GW has not, they'll think it's some ellaborate deception and everyone but them is just being fooled.

The things you listed (prices, rules, balance, weapon options, rules entries, etc.) are things that are not my issues and for many think GW's current offerings are actually doing well.

The recent DG releases have me conflicted. On one hand the Foul Blightspawn came at a price that, while not exactly acceptable for canadians, is not that outragous as the other recent clampack releases. On the other hand Morty is really overpriced for what you get and is more expensive than his brother Magnus (who has more sprues).

However there seems to be a show of willingness to lower their prices, as well as releasing bundles that have actual discounts without being outrageously priced (the allies boxes of AoS compared to, say, the army boxes that frequently cost a few hundred).

Given that the majority of the changes are for good, even with hiccups along the way, I think we should give GW a chance for the next few years and see if they implement real changes. Such things won't happen overnight or even in a few months.

And as always, remember to vote with your wallets (and this means purchasing things that you do feel worth it, not just snobbing things you dislike). GW is listening for the first time in a decade so this is more important now than ever.

Overall, I do think that GW is beginning to make some real changes (though I feel they still miss the target more often than they hit)

- They now provide several price point entry levels in to their games ( free PDF rules, "Start Collecting" magazine, several levels of the starter set, full BRB, start collecting boxes)

- They are beginning to re-encourage modding (though only using their kits)

- They are providing rules for some cases where there aren't models (Marbo, Rough Riders, Librarian Dreadknight)

- They are providing slightly more advanced warning of upcoming releases (the codex list to the end of the year)

- They are on track to return some old, beloved game systems (Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Bloodbowl) and providing new ones (Gorechosen, Gangs of Commorogh, Shadow War, etc.)

- Return of selling GW product in internet shopping carts

But, they still do have some issues that I wish they would address

- Moving finecast/metal lines to plastic

- Strategms are on track to become the 8E version of Formations

- Codex creep and the "haves" vs. "have-nots"

- Single character/HQ $$ and the prices of some kits

I had some others that were more than niggling annoyances, but for some reason I'm drawing a bank on them :/

 Geifer wrote:
First, it gives select people what they want. Not just people. This is easily proven because I don't get what I want, so asserting that regardless of any other circumstances people are getting what they want is false.

If GW can meet their business goals without catering to your desires, do you count?

By that I mean, should they bother catering your specific criteria that you will use to determine if they "learned their lesson"? Should you getting what you want matter if people (whoever they may be) are getting what they want? They just happen to be people that are not you.

If giving you what you want is sufficiently easy and cheap, then they should. If it would be expensive and involve large changes to the company itself, they probably shouldn't bother.

Second, rigging the result to stay the same regardless of the outlook defies logic.

It's isolating a variable, so it's actually super logical. We have GW's published results from the last couple years and they have improved. Period. So that outcome cannot be different in the two possibilities. The results staying the same regardless of the outlook is reality itself. The unknown (variable being isolated) is the outlook.

For someone to fool someone else, for them to use "smoke and mirrors" requires an intent to deceive. No one is "fooled" without someone intending to fool. No one is "tricked' into buying GW's stuff if GW actually believes in their product and that what they are offering is actually what people want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll give an example for myself where I am torn as to whether or not GW is actually intending to fool people.

Tournament play.

They wouldn't shut up about how much they consulted tournament players for both 8th edition and General's Handbook 2017.

Does GW actually believe their rules are good enough for tournament gamers or have they been fooling people?

It's my opinion that the matched play approach to both AoS and 8th edition 40k is the inferior of both open and narrative play. If GW believed as I did and then went on pumping their game for tournaments anyway, then there really would be a case for saying "smoke and mirrors!" and "people are falling for GW's marketing."

Or they might be looking at attendance at AoS and 8th edition 40k events and the positive experience people are having there and they actually believe in their product and it actually is working for people.

I think GW's deceptiveness is on a continuum. Organizations are made up of multiple people and have current cultures and trends of opinion within them.

I think between the CHS lawsuit and a bit into 7th edition was the time of GW's greatest levels of contempt for their customers and the lowest level of belief in their own products. The launch of 7th so soon after 6th and current staff talking about how 8th was on the table so soon after that makes me conclude that GW never really believed it was anything other than a edition-as-cash-grab while 8th actually was something GW can believe in with a straight face.

So I think they've shifted away from marketing as deception to marketing as letting people know of a product they actually stand behind with both the GHB and 8th edition.

 Mymearan wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.

These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.

Scarily enough - I mostly agree.

I have to add the caveat - 'but not for me', because they did a very good job of turning me into an ex-customer.

So much so that I sold off the Dark Angels army that I have had for decades. (Took up room, I am not playing, and we have a kid.)

But, a long time ago, I said that if GW ever really wanted me back as a customer, all that they would really have to do is re-release, or release a new edition of, either Mordheim or Necromunda....

So, I am watching... nervously, but watching.

I am never going to play 40K again, nor will I ever play AoS. I have lost all interest in the former, and loathe the latter.

But Necromunda?

If the price is right, I might buy it just for the minis.

If the rules are good?

I will be a happy Grump

The Auld Grump

As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.

It is sort of strange for me to bring my army and you bring yours and then we play a scenario designed with neither of them in mind except in a very general fashion and we expect it to somehow be balanced?

And yet, when I go to ITC events, people have a blast and skilled players consistently come out on top. So even in that environment, there are things you can do to win more consistently, so I would say it is up to the task.

Even if the task is largely about analyzing the meta and making the right call at the army building stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Shadespire is designed from the ground up to be a competitive game. So even if AoS and 40k aren't perfect, Shadespire will give them a product designed for the competitive player full stop.

Enough wasting time on the internet though. It's painting night.

 frozenwastes wrote:
As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.

They tried the approach of "This game is not for competitive play!" and being honest about it but peoplet didn't liked that.

 Geifer wrote:

A more fitting line of thinking for a disgruntled old git like me would be:

GW is out to make money by cultivating its IP to preserve classic ideals and tries to please its core audience

versus

GW is out to make money by revising its IP to meet modern sentiments and tries to appeal to a wider audience

GW's goal isn't in doubt. There is no question as to the goals of a publicly traded company. It's about their methods and how they affect you. And that is entirely down to the individual. No matter how well GW is doing, no matter how many people buy more than they did before, no matter how many people are satisfied with GW, that's a question that only the individual can answer.

To bring a completely different take on this issue, I want to use a very apples/oranges comparison. . . Chevrolet. See, here in the US, we're bombarded with advertisements touting their JD Power "best in initial quality" awards. . . Which people have found out is a total farce of an award. Basically, it is a metric that apparently Chevy themselves lobbied to have created, measuring faults/breakdowns/defective vehicles, within the first 90 days of ownership. .. . So, basically, if you buy a brand new Chevy, you're probably "good" for the first 90 days, but a number of other tests show that really, the metric should be the first year, in which the total brand performs about as well, or just slightly below other auto manufacturers.

Why do I use this example?? Because essentially, Chevrolet is using a rather deceptive marketing scheme to draw in customers (for further reference to this deception, there's a ton of "everything wrong with" videos for their truck bed demonstration commercials). Yes, GW is trying to make money. . . but they aren't exactly deceiving anyone. We all know that releases are coming hot, fast, and in a hurry, we all know generally to expect models to be around a certain price point (whether we agree with that or not, is another issue). And, if you have issues with a product purchased through GW, they are still doing largely the same replacement/return policy as they've had for a long time.

Galas wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.

They tried the approach of "This game is not for competitive play!" and being honest about it but peoplet didn't liked that.

So the question is are they lying about it now? Since the GHB added matched play and points to AoS?

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working? I've heard a lot of podcast interviews with tournament AoS regulars and their lists are doing things on a totally different level compared to a non optimzed build.

How much (like as a percentage) would be needed to be possibly present in a winning list for people who want a wider range of top lists to be satisfied?

For those wanting "balance" how much of a codex needs to be tournament playable?

The top level tournament players create their own balance. They identify the best stuff and figure out what works and play a version of the game that only includes those things.

And everyone else in a larger event will select themselves into workable matchups through the way swiss matchings work. Lots of people go to the bigger ITC events just to play with people on the bottom tables.

It only really breaks down in smaller events and in individual games. Anyone thinking GW is going to provide balance when they don't know what I'm taking, what you're taking or how that will work in a given scenario is fooling themselves. Too many variables outside the game designer's control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want an example of a game that mostly gets balance right (or at least way, way better than GW does with warhammers) should check out infinity. The reason they can get it right is they actually have less variables. There is more in common with how any given group of troopers is going to work in that game than in 40k. Less variables so they can actually make it all make sense when doing the scenarios and points.

AoS is certainly in an interesting place. . . I mean, the Stormcast releases have slowed down. . .but there's still so much that's been ignored rules/lore/model wise. For me personally, it's pretty cool that Beastclaw Raiders are a thing. . . but what about the other half of my Ogres?? Then there's my Empire/ "Freeguild" stuff. I'm sure we'll never see it, but what about them? What about the elves in Order? What about Beastmen?? 

Other than the one boxed set and Generals handbook, AoS has had quite a break recently what with the insane release schedule for 40k.

Of those questions I'd say the ogre one is the only that needs answering by GW. (Though with all the things on their plate for demanded releases down the years it's likely on the low end the list)

Otherwise freeguild and most of Order just got a big focus with FireStorm(elves certainly among them), Elves will likely be focused on with next year's Slaanesh focus and beastmen got attention too rulewise this year as well as the amazing Tzaangors last year and rumored Nurgle beastmen next year.

As for the "break", it's actually better than last year which first half of the year was AoS with little to no focus the other half(except a Stormcast hero upgrade kit). We got a ton of stuff this half of the year with the other half getting FireStorm and ShadeSpire.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?

GW just put about 30 of the books on Audible. I will now be paying £8 a book instead of £25. This is a meaningful change for me.
With Shadespire at £40 it seems likely that expansions will be about £20. After buying the starter I can set myself a budget of £10 a month and have a realistic chance of buying everything. ( unlike bloodbowl where you have buy expensive resin boosters and star players to make a complete team)
The core product is still very expensive, but there are more and more ways that a someone can enjoy GW products at a relatively low price point.

We now have Shadespire, skirmish, path to glory, shadow war, bloodbowl and soon Necromunda which all have a relatively low barrier to entry pricewise and none of which were supported 3 years ago.