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 that, instead of selling individual white dwarf magazines, it would "sell better" as yearly collections. Like.. White Dwarf 1990, White Dwarf 1991, etc.

I have some experience now with Affinity publisher, layout, editing, etc. And yeah its not as simple as "scan and done" but its not a lot of hard work either, and having a good clean issue to scan can make for less digital work to clean it up.

Part of the problem of releasing loads of old white dwarf or codex/rulesbooks is that people might realise that GW were a hell of a lot more customer friendly back then!

Part of me wonders, if fans of old GW purchased enough shares of the company, that influence on the board/leadership could be pushed to make them more hobby friendly again, but maybe not enough shares to influence the board are publicly purchasable, I dunno. Might be a better investment of money instead of buying a new army though.

Might be a fun gift for someone to buy them some GW shares.

(I wonder if they still have Stock Certificates in the UK.)

I doubt that anyone can really change their minds on the current way they are doing things. They are turning a profit, and the majority of players seem to be enjoying the games they produce.

boyd wrote:
I don't know how much it would actually sell. When I found my old White Dwarf magazines from 1996-2005, I dropped them off at a game shop with a very large player base as their bi-weekly tournaments got 40 people and the shop had a good 25 tables for Warhammer. After a year, 6 copies were taken from the bos. The shop tossed them all in the recycling bin. That was during the phase where White Dwarf became the weekly magazine that was essentially the Warhammer Community page. Would it sell now? Maybe some of the old issues would sell. Not sure how well but it most certainly would not be like printing money.

Printed magazines/books are different because shipping becomes a big factor. Also physical quality.

But if it is a digital download, none of that matters. And as others mentioned, you could batch them by year, making them even more attractive. Like a specific edition? Buy the years it was in print. Instant money.

All that being said, GW has been that wonderful company that seems to do everything wrong and somehow still keeps on going. They made a pact with the Chaos Gods or something.

As noted many times over the last 25 years or so, just because it should happen doesn't mean it will.

My only point is that - compared with publishing books and miniatures, scanning in the back catalog would not take that much effort and it would be not just immeidately made good whatever their costs were, it would be a continuing resource for the years to come.

The game of Warhammer’s reason for existence has always been to encourage people to buy Citadel miniatures. New editions of the game ensure that all of the current models are supported. Republishing old editions that support out of production models simply isn’t Games Workshop’s business model. Encouraging players to stop buying new models is a significant risk, and likely isn’t worth the relatively small revenue selling those old books and magazines represents.

 Pariah Press wrote:
The game of Warhammer’s reason for existence has always been to encourage people to buy Citadel miniatures. New editions of the game ensure that all of the current models are supported. Republishing old editions that support out of production models simply isn’t Games Workshop’s business model. Encouraging players to stop buying new models is a significant risk, and likely isn’t worth the relatively small revenue selling those old books and magazines represents.

This is true probably. Seems like the rogue trader release was a labour of love and also it is likely seen as more of a historical collectable than anything. I expect more people have that just to display or leaf through than actually play games with it.

 Hellebore wrote:
Here's a brief article where she discusses some of the work that went into it.

It's not excessive, but it's also not quick.

https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/rogue-trader-rulebook-reprint-louise-sugden

Thanks!

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The "production line" is literally someone with a decent flat-bed scanner.

A 'decent flatbed scanner' does not get you a publication-quality product.

And yet, I can find the entirety of Mordheim (all books, Town Cryers, and every half-assed experimental rule in existence) scanned in, in printable form, for free, on the internet. Because someone cared enough to do it. Same with Epic Armageddon. And likely other GW products I haven't looked for.

I sincerely doubt they were using anything more than a scanner. It's not hard if you're willing to sacrifice one copy of a book and do some editing work on the .pdf's. GW doesn't even care if they're not selling a currently competing product, as far as I can tell. Why would they? No one is selling any of it. It's all out there, free to have. The most it would cost you is your time, printer ink, and paper.

Are those things perfect? Nope. They're 95% though. And if GW wanted to, they could make money doing it themselves. Digital downloads, print-on-demand, and things like that already exist. It's not even hard.

Those people saying GW doesn't care because it doesn't sell the current line of minis are 1000% correct. That is literally all they care about, selling overpriced plastic miniatures. And they've done very well for themselves by caring about nothing else. Don't fool yourself.

The fact that, even WoTC, as bad as they are, still still print on demand and digital downloads of older edition D&D products shows that GW could be doing the same thing, its a one time investment in the time to get those digital products ready, and then it becomes a life-long potential revenue stream.

Honestly when you look at the volume of material that places like Drive Through RPG have for DnD its amazing that GW doesn't do more.

Then again GW has the issue that past rules material is basically useless for modern games and GW really wants you playing modern rules to generate sales for modern models.

Meanwhile in DnD old stuff might not be 100% compatible, but you can still use it with the modern rules and books. If anything greater historical access increases direct sales for the new material

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you look at the volume of material that places like Drive Through RPG have for DnD its amazing that GW doesn't do more.

Then again GW has the issue that past rules material is basically useless for modern games and GW really wants you playing modern rules to generate sales for modern models.

Meanwhile in DnD old stuff might not be 100% compatible, but you can still use it with the modern rules and books. If anything greater historical access increases direct sales for the new material

It is both the company and the player base. the drive/fomo or whatever you want to call it is so strong with 40K getting people to step away from what is current is incredibly hard. compare it to battle tech. the core mechanics of the game have basically remained nearly unchanged for 40 years. and they have entire tomes of official optional rules that players can use to deepen the game experience. it is overall a better game design since the same minis can be used in whatever era or with whichever optional rules the players like to use.

The problem for 40K is that the company constantly changes the core rules so half the time you cannot or do not want to use the same minis in your collection. with the additional strain of the 3 year edition cycle to drive sales most players are not the long time gamers such as myself since it tends to lead to a high turnover of the players base. even with every edition having it's flaws the game play is so markedly different it isn't really the same table top game even if it is in the same universe.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you look at the volume of material that places like Drive Through RPG have for DnD its amazing that GW doesn't do more.

Then again GW has the issue that past rules material is basically useless for modern games and GW really wants you playing modern rules to generate sales for modern models.

Meanwhile in DnD old stuff might not be 100% compatible, but you can still use it with the modern rules and books. If anything greater historical access increases direct sales for the new material

There are so many "new" miniatures that are basically fully compatible with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th edition of 40k, and Rogue Trader is designed to allow you to design your own units to fit the miniatures. Sure there are probably some new minis that wouldn't work in these editions, but so many other miniatures can work, or... they can be proxied by other new miniatures which lots of people who are into older editions would be more likely to do anyways.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you look at the volume of material that places like Drive Through RPG have for DnD its amazing that GW doesn't do more.

Then again GW has the issue that past rules material is basically useless for modern games and GW really wants you playing modern rules to generate sales for modern models.

Well, if they want me playing a "modern" version of Man-O-War, Mordhiem, or Battlefleet Gothic they'd better get off their asses....

ccs wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you look at the volume of material that places like Drive Through RPG have for DnD its amazing that GW doesn't do more.

Then again GW has the issue that past rules material is basically useless for modern games and GW really wants you playing modern rules to generate sales for modern models.

Well, if they want me playing a "modern" version of Man-O-War, Mordhiem, or Battlefleet Gothic they'd better get off their asses....

And, frankly, I really hope they don't. Old school Mordheim is a superb game to play with a half-dozen+ friends over the course of several weeks during a campaign, everyone laughing and toasting to each other's triumphs and tragedies.

So is old school Necromunda. Now, compare that to the newest version, with vehicles, walkers, monsters, and a bunch of other unbalanced nonsense throwing everything that was good about the first game out the window to replace it with more short-attention-span miniatures to sell, and I'd rather they didn't do ANYTHING except publish their original rules.

In fact, I'd rather people who actually love the games literally stole everything GW ever did and republished it for free, ala Mordheim and Epic, than let them get another crack at "improving and modernizing" it.

Republishing original works after scanning them and cleaning them up? Yes.

Publishing new and "improved" versions of their older games? Hard pass. The community has them beaten, hands down.

 Kagetora wrote:
In fact, I'd rather people who actually love the games literally stole everything GW ever did and republished it for free, ala Mordheim and Epic, than let them get another crack at "improving and modernizing" it.

Republishing original works after scanning them and cleaning them up? Yes.

Publishing new and "improved" versions of their older games? Hard pass. The community has them beaten, hands down.

At this point it is axiomatic that GW players have far greater affection for the company's legacy products than the current management does. In fact, it seems embarrassed that this stuff even exists, and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

It is what it is, I suppose, and somehow it keeps working after all of these years.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

I will say, corporate practices aside, I've never known anything but awesome customer service and friendliness from my local GW employees.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

Wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

Also seconded.

I was interestingly right at the time the original design team parted ways with the company. Andy was the head of game design for 3rd, 4th and left partway through the development of 5th. most of the original team was gone by 6th. just comparing the wealth of options and information in say the 4th ed main rulebook or any of the old smaller and simpler codexes, compared to anything released today showed the level of difference in concern for the community and the health of the game. bitz buying for conversions, home made terrain tutorials. VDR etc.....

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

I will say, corporate practices aside, I've never known anything but awesome customer service and friendliness from my local GW employees.

Agreed and from their mail order services have always been very helpful too. When I say they were more customer friendly I suppose I ultimately mean less "coroporate". I know they were always about profit but the likes of White Dwarf had a more charmingly amateur style and of course were far more open with advice on conversions, using non GW parts, terrain etc. They of course can't really recreate this now and they seem to have at least tried with White Dwarf somewhat, they're just a far more "professional" company I guess.

Dai2 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
. . ., and attitude that goes back to 1998 and the launch of 3rd ed 40k.

That was also the point at which GW changed from a "product improvement/expand the player base" model to a "product cycle/milk the player base" one.

I don't think that statement rings true at all. In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number. Customer service was amazing.

The feeling of gouging for me started when they moved to hardcover codecies. That was 6th ed. iirc. Imo rules started to feel more "churney" during 5th, but that's probably more subjective.

I will say, corporate practices aside, I've never known anything but awesome customer service and friendliness from my local GW employees.

Agreed and from their mail order services have always been very helpful too. When I say they were more customer friendly I suppose I ultimately mean less "coroporate". I know they were always about profit but the likes of White Dwarf had a more charmingly amateur style and of course were far more open with advice on conversions, using non GW parts, terrain etc. They of course can't really recreate this now and they seem to have at least tried with White Dwarf somewhat, they're just a far more "professional" company I guess.

That's entirely fair. Won't object to that statement.

Where does this "you cannot play old editions with modern models" BS come from?

Take any edition, with the current GW plastic ranges for AOS, 40K & 30K, and there isn't almost anything you would be without. Proportions are better, and scales overall are much more consistent now. Converting and kitbashing has never been as good as now. Heck, throw in some Necromunda resins and you can easily turn the clock back to Rogue Trader-o-clock, all with modern models. Only thing you'd have changed would be the base sizes..

That cannot be the reason why old editions arent re-released. It has to be something else..

 tauist wrote:
Where does this "you cannot play old editions with modern models" BS come from?
.

They don't mean that modern versions of models can't be used, because for the most part that's totally fine. There are one or two, like the Greater Demons, which are a LOT bigger now than they were (honestly you'd likely use princes as greater demons for old versions of the rules); but by and large whilst a few have gone up in base size its not game breaking.

What they mean is that there are a lot of models in modern armies that have no equivalent in the old rules. Tyranids have loads of models that were never around in 1st and 2nd edition - even 3rd edition is missing whole chunks of the army that is out now. Which means you either have to make up your own rules or not use those models.



So yes you can build a 3rd, 2nd or even 1st edition force using modern models - 100% you can do that.
You might have a few quirks here and there and maybe hunt down the odd retro model but otherwise you can easily do that.

You just can't bring the new fancy cool toys as well without creating house rules for them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
In 3rd lots of armies got new, cheaper plastic troops kits, and codex price dropped as well. The focus was definitely on expanding, not gouging. That was also the era of calling up the company and ordering specific bits by part number.

The switch to plastic models is what killed the 1st party bits orders. Even pre-2nd edition plastics were strictly by sprue and not by part.

 tauist wrote:
Where does this "you cannot play old editions with modern models" BS come from?

Take any edition, with the current GW plastic ranges for AOS, 40K & 30K, and there isn't almost anything you would be without. Proportions are better, and scales overall are much more consistent now. Converting and kitbashing has never been as good as now. Heck, throw in some Necromunda resins and you can easily turn the clock back to Rogue Trader-o-clock, all with modern models. Only thing you'd have changed would be the base sizes..

That cannot be the reason why old editions arent re-released. It has to be something else..

Splitting the difference a bit here, and hopefully not a hair.

As Overread said, loads of stuff exists now that just didn’t exist in earlier editions. So there’s some stuff you’d need to home brew rules for.

But, you can of course use modern models to play a Codex 2nd Ed army. Except there is a scaling issue if you’re using modern models, and your opponent is using models from the 2nd Ed Era. Line of Sight is the main issue there of course. A modern Great Unclean One can’t be hidden from view as readily as the RT or 2nd Ed one, for example. Terminators are much bigger too.

Some armies have done better than others there. Eldar haven’t been scaled up quite so much, other than the Avatar.

So you need to be a bit careful to ensure you’re not playing at a disadvantage. But only if one of the players is using vintage models.

I've said it before on here but 4e was the last edition with a proper "hobby section" in the rulebook. 5e switched to being all about the kits GW released and didn't really have the same amount about kitbashing, or painting your army to a hobbyists standard, or making terrain. That was a great part of the philosophy back then, which was really shown best in the various LOTR books where they wanted to make wargaming accessible.

On the playing with new models thing, the main issue for me is the egregious scale creep. Not interested in playing with the upscaled models generally.

 tauist wrote:

That cannot be the reason why old editions arent re-released. It has to be something else..

That 'something else' is *obviously* that GW want to keep their customers on the treadmill.

A.T. wrote:
The switch to plastic models is what killed the 1st party bits orders. Even pre-2nd edition plastics were strictly by sprue and not by part.

Even without the move towards plastic, the removal of the bits orders was almost inevitable.
GW had in the region of 6000 SKUs when they discontinued bits - which reduced to about 600. It was simply unmanageable.

Just to say with the advances in AI models of various types, setting up an archiving system for old publications, especially if it can destroy the originals in the process, is pretty easy for a specialist. Then all you need is a proof reader.

 Overread wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Where does this "you cannot play old editions with modern models" BS come from?
.

They don't mean that modern versions of models can't be used, because for the most part that's totally fine. There are one or two, like the Greater Demons, which are a LOT bigger now than they were (honestly you'd likely use princes as greater demons for old versions of the rules); but by and large whilst a few have gone up in base size its not game breaking.

What they mean is that there are a lot of models in modern armies that have no equivalent in the old rules. Tyranids have loads of models that were never around in 1st and 2nd edition - even 3rd edition is missing whole chunks of the army that is out now. Which means you either have to make up your own rules or not use those models.

So yes you can build a 3rd, 2nd or even 1st edition force using modern models - 100% you can do that.
You might have a few quirks here and there and maybe hunt down the odd retro model but otherwise you can easily do that.

You just can't bring the new fancy cool toys as well without creating house rules for them.

I don't even see that as the main issue, sure it could be a problem but not really our 5th ed group regularly back fills "newer" models/rules from 6th and 7th into 5th ed core rules. and you could do something similar with minis from from even newer editions as "counts as" the real problem is the lack of knowledge or drive to get a community to play an older version of the game when GW actively discourages it. i can tell you all the players we have drawn into our 5th ed group since 8th ed ranging from players in their teens to their 40s LOVE playing 5th ed. and now have come to hate everything about modern 40K. when given the chance they will not play 10th.