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.

mrFickle 807817 11459550 wrote:

Aren’t there legends rules for yarrick, as an example?

It also wouldn’t be fair for people to be able to use a model/rules from years ago that new players don’t have access to because it OOP.

I would not bring the aspect of fairness in to a discussion about GW games. They are inherintly unfair. And as I said before, cpt Artemis is not an old model, neither are the Deathguard ETB models.

Dudeface wrote:

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

A headline is part of the content of an article. Perhaps the word you want is body?

The rest of the article goes on to describe how GW (and "the game," whatever that means) is being "hurt" in a manner that's near synonymous with "ruin". The proposed fix for this hurt and ruin at the conclusion of the article is for GW to ban models.

Honestly, I find 40K to be much more welcoming then pretty much any other wargaming community.

Try going to an X-Wing tournament with "I have the rules on my phone, don't like the silly cards" or to an Infinity tournament with "I converted some of my old Marines to be counts-as Adriana", etc..

"The anti-consumer decision making is your fault, and the negativity will continue until the competitors go away" isn't really a very productive position to hold.

Any issues at GW are solely the responsibility of GW, blaming 3rd parties for selling or consumers for buying a compelling product won't change anything at all and self-harming your own product might reduce a consumers desire to buy a 3rd party item, but it will equally reduce desire to buy a GW item, for example:

Chaos Terminators have been blessed with a modern datasheet. A unit of 5 models can take the options from 1 boxset, a unit of precisely 10 models can take the options from 2 boxsets. If you buy 2 boxes and take all the options (all 10 combi-weapons for example), you now cannot field these models as a unit of 6-9 models as they will have an illegal loadout with too many guns. Axing datasheets that have never had models is one thing (Chaos Marines on Steeds of Slaanesh for example), but being able to buy products today, then build them "wrong" and not be able to play them is just rubbish - how many times do you think a player will happily fall into this trap before thinking about just not buying new models?

If GW actually wanted to affect model sales in a positive way with Codex writing, then surely the answer would be to make some pro-consumer decisions - straight off the top of my head:
1. Put some of the HH vehicle datasheets into Chaos and Imperial Codices - existing kits are now more desirable to more people.
2. When making new models, prioritise gaps in the range ahead of Codex filler units. Prime example - we're on course for 4 new cultist sets this year with monopose autopistol dudes, Accursed, Ring Wraith cosplayers and Jakhals. New Raptors, new Bikers and generic Chaos Lord all seem like options worthy of considering ahead of that.
3. If you really really want to limit options, at least be reasonable and go for "whats in the range" over "whats in the box". The new restrictions on Imperial Guard are a bit of a joke - anyone wanting to play Guard has already resigned themselves to buying multiples of the same box set as it's the only way to fill out a playable army. There are no good reasons at all why new units like Shock Troops cannot mix and match left over weapons from multiple kits - the parts exist and you have to buy them to play the army but apparently leaving spare parts on the side is preferable?

 Altruizine wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

A headline is part of the content of an article. Perhaps the word you want is body?

The rest of the article goes on to describe how GW (and "the game," whatever that means) is being "hurt" in a manner that's near synonymous with "ruin". The proposed fix for this hurt and ruin at the conclusion of the article is for GW to ban models.

The 40k game is being twisted by their policies due to the existence of the 3d printing market, the only thing that article does to make anyone get worked up is by suggesting it's the people producing and buying them causing GW to react, rather than shifting the onus of the decision back to being GWs. I'm in no way saying I like or want the weird ass unit entries we get as a part of this situation, but GW has made up their mind that this is how they're going to tackle the problem and it is as a result of people printing out armies/units and turning up places.

The key bit of the article that is worthwhile is that it does also damage game stores, but that's common sense and over shadowed by the evil 3d printing vs evil GW conversation.

I find threads like this oddly reassuring. In a time of tumult, uncertainty and rising chaos, GW's business practices are the rock upon which I can rely.

Imagine a world where GW commits itself to a single definitive edition of rules, one that is thoroughly playtested with excellent balance and where revisions are only done to improve clarity and streamline game play.

Or that GW decided that it would dominate the miniatures market on the basis of quality and affordability, leveraging its lengthy experience and sophisticated techniques to ensure the best possible value for money.

What the heck would we talk about then?

How many threads could we have saying "Wow, did you see the new low price on Space Marines? It's a sweet deal!"

"Yeah, and the sculpts are outstanding!"

The horror. The horror.

Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time, I accept sometimes things will get missed in proofing but its every single book these days, but eternal churn is (tin foil) part of the design, if everything is constantly in motion the flaws are hard to spot, well apart from the bajillon eyes and math capable forces of the interwebs

As for the mini''s thats on GW again, I get the money reasons for not refreshing ranges but you then can't get a grump if players go elsewhere for things (make Court of the Archon purchasable again !)

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time, I accept sometimes things will get missed in proofing but its every single book these days, but eternal churn is (tin foil) part of the design, if everything is constantly in motion the flaws are hard to spot, well apart from the bajillon eyes and math capable forces of the interwebs

As for the mini''s thats on GW again, I get the money reasons for not refreshing ranges but you then can't get a grump if players go elsewhere for things (make Court of the Archon purchasable again !)

I think there is some evidence that in the 1990s, GW was actually following both business models I outlined. Certainly their fantasy figures were very affordable, which is how I encountered them. They were a great way to bolster D&D collections for when you wanted the party to fight off a gang of orcs or something like that.

In terms of game development, there was also a sense that GW was actually refining and improving its work. If you look at the early development of 40k from Rogue Trader to the Compendium to what we now call 2nd ed., there is a clear effort to streamline and rationalize the rules.

The same is also true with Fantasy, which originally had the feel of a historicals rules set and later became very explicity 'fantastic' in its scope, hence creating Herohammer.

There is evidence that the shift in GW's strategy was not without internal dissent, and these disputes were breathlessly reported on sites like this. There was also close attention paid to who wrote which book and how it stacked up on the power curve. (IIRC, Gav Thorpe was a lightning rod for criticism.)

I'm under no illusions that GW is going to change and like many observers, my predictions of the company's demise are at least a decade overdue (I thought the end of the LotR bubble would wreck them).

All of which is to say, I wasn't being ironic - I really do find threads like this comforting.

I think BOLS and GW underestimate local hobby stores. My local store has seen a marked uptick in the number of people using 3d printed miniatures or, more often, just bits. This obviously hurt the owners bottom line, but being the intrepid individual she is, she went and spoke to all the customers who used 3d printed parts. Where did you get them, what do you need to make them, what other things do you need?

A week later, she put 1 foot of shelf space aside for bottles of resin, rolls of plastic wire, and a few other bits and bobs.
After a month, since she now stocked 3d printer goods, people outside of miniature wargaming would come in and buy stuff.
after a couple more months, 1 foot on 1 shelf had turned into 3 feet on 2 shelves, and the original offering of 3-4 different types of resin and plastic has turned into pretty much everything you need outside of the printer itself.

She has gone from potentially losing money from people using 3d printed stuff and not buying boxes of plastic minis, to making more money by being a great place to get everything you need to 3d print. and she has taken the time to learn as much as she can about the entire process so she can talk anyone interested through the process.

She has embraced 3d printing after being really quite stressed about losing business, and is now doing better business than ever. there are also a lot more 3d printed miniatures than ever being used which makes for a much greater variety in what you will see on the table, its pretty fantastic.

yeah, stores and GW need to adapt.

 Altruizine wrote:
PAPER TOWEL is ruining THIS MESS.

OK but legit best thing I have read all month

I love that the argument basically boils down to "GW changes the rules so that I need to buy more models."

Yes. That is the point of GW changing the rules. GW makes money selling models.

"GW doesn't care about it's customers" No, if you're not buying more kits, you're no longer a customer, you're a fan. And GW knows that one of the top ten threads on every GW friendly board/forum/group is "I'm back after 5-20 years!"

I'm repainting guard melta guns so I'll be able to play the army I want, and even trying to think about how to convert praetorians into holding a drum fed autogun. Maybe I'm a simp, but I want to play, so i do it. If you don't, don't.

I would not use printed out pages from BOLS to protect the floor from cat urine.

mrFickle wrote:

Karol wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
It doesnt make sense to say that GW expected players to find their own models for the ork battle wagon and then responded to 3rd party models by creating the no model no rules policy.


Having no model for a set of rules was a real pain for me as a kid with no concept of kit bashing let alone 3rd party models and internet.

And why would a GW organised tournament allow 3rd party mini, obviously these tournaments are part of their business model

But it is not a question of tournaments, or just tournaments. GW is changing the rules, as in load outs and access to models, even ones they produced, just to fit what they can sell right now. So if they don't have and don't have a new Yarik model, then it doesn't matter that people have bought the model from them, and have it. They will remove it. And it is not just old models which are in resin. They removed cpt Artemis, a new plastic model, and the stuff they did to the DG line is what we call here as "magical".

Aren’t there legends rules for yarrick, as an example?

No, not yet. There's a Lord Commissar, but not Yarrick specifically.

 blood reaper wrote:
I would not use printed out pages from BOLS to protect the floor from cat urine.

it's a shame, because for a while it was sort of the standard bearer for fan sites. They created fan rules for the Horus Heresy way back in the mid oughts, and their supplement on the macharian crusade was amazing.

the only way to make a buck on the internet is either patreon or crippling advertising. Shame they went the way they did.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

eh, i think some of it is tribalism more than real love for GW. I don't think I'm a GW white knight or anything, but the never ending crushing criticism of GW is just obnoxious sometimes. GW makes some baffling decisions, but sometimes I just want to enjoy the game I play, not line up to dunk on GW all day, every day.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

eh, i think some of it is tribalism more than real love for GW. I don't think I'm a GW white knight or anything, but the never ending crushing criticism of GW is just obnoxious sometimes. GW makes some baffling decisions, but sometimes I just want to enjoy the game I play, not line up to dunk on GW all day, every day.

+1

Also sometimes the whole "holding them to higher standards" is nice and all, but when its the same 10-20 people in a forum just chatting about hobby stuff that is NOT going to change GW's opinion. A some point you have to accept what is, is and then either live with that or move on. Or if you are going to change their mind you've got to do more than keyboard warrior in the forum.

I think what really grates though is how many discussions end up giving up with the topic and end up with insults being slung around with casual terms being used to insult both those who regularly criticise and those who regularly defend or at least justify. Which just turns the whole discussion away from the point and into an ego fight where whoever wins is the one who can insult the most users before the mods shut it down.

Dai wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

Nah, I'm here for it. It brings the abuses of capitalism into frame.

GW are at worst ripping off some middle class nerds so id say there are far better targets when aiming for that. Unless there are worse atrocities, taking advantage of Chinese workers?

Nevertheless GW does not manipulate or gaslight, they are not abusing their customer base. They are selling a non vital, non addictive product and anyone can walk away anytime.

The noncompetitive behavior they got sued for in Canada would apply.

In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yeah, as much as people mock "nuGW", it's working for them.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Yeah, as much as people mock "nuGW", it's working for them.

That’s kinda just marketing, it works so big company tend to use it.

It also is that if people are buying, then why change for GW. So if players buy massive piles of GW stuff, and complain then buy more.
How would people here respond if they where running the company to that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

NMNR and 3rd party models have almost no relation in reality, other than the latter being an easy scapegoat for the former.

A Canoness can't take a hand flamer.
There's no hand flamer in the kit.
A Superior can take a hand flamer.
There's no hand flamer in the Battle Sisters or Retributor kits.
The only hand flamers are in the Seraphim kit, where they can't be taken by the Superior.

There is nothing legally that GW could do to stop a 3rd party selling not-hand flamers compatible with Superiors or the Canoness, so long as they're not direct copies of the existing parts, or infringing on trademarks (Chapterhouse).
Indeed, there are more 3rd party parts available now than ever before.

That article honestly was hard to read. It might be that the formatting doesn't work well on my phone but even then, a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds. It's also quite different from what that site used to be like back when I occasionally looked there years ago.

That said, I found the text to be incoherent and not really building up towards something. The basic idea seems to be that there being any kind of competition in the marketplace is bad for GW and therefore for the games they produce. Funnily enough, competition tends to lead to better products because it forces companies to adapt and improve. GW however has such a dominant position because of the game rules that they can basically make the rules for the marketplace. Which, to be fair, I would also do in their position. Or I just wouldn't care that much because all these third party sales are a rounding error compared to GW sales.

That also is why I think that third party models are at best a fig leaf. Arguments like being able to just build any unit from the box hold much more water. That reduces barriers to entry and that generally is a good thing for a company.

These weird rules would also make more sense in a computer based context where a lot of the long lists of what options exist for which models can just be hidden behind an interface. They however out them into physical books where they just look hideous

 Dolnikan wrote:
a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds

Yep, that's BOLS. It's a clickbait ad farm with just enough "content" to get you to keep scrolling through more ads. Please stop visiting them and rewarding their clickbait.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

Maybe it's because I am looking more from the AoS end than 40k, but bear in mind we went from no start collecting boxes to almost every army having one in a short span. Those were (and still are, where they haven't been killed) game changers for army building. For many it moved the picture from a mess of unguided expense to a lower cost model. And that isn't even touching on reboxes or the pricing of new releases. It was still GW with the $30 single characters and all but it offered a great deal of relief for the core army building experience.

I think it is easy to forget just how BAD late stage Kirby era was. Perhaps such memories are otiose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yup. The biggest problem with the corporate shareholder model isn't the function, it's humans screwing it up with ineptitude. People don't think about why the concepts of empathy or customer service exist.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

I think it is easy to forget just how BAD late stage Kirby era was. Perhaps such memories are otiose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yup. The biggest problem with the corporate shareholder model isn't the function, it's humans screwing it up with ineptitude. People don't think about why the concepts of empathy or customer service exist.

I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.


The shareholder system can work, but you often have to remember that many of the shareholders are only in it for fast gains and that pandering to their desires will often sink your company because fast profits, high rises and constant increase is often totally unsustainable for most firms. You can chase it, but often as not it will break you in the long run. Which some managers are fine with because they've loaded themselves up on stock and can sell out before the crash (and then pray they don't get caught).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

2016 was a Golden Year for GW. The release of affordable Start Collecting boxes, AoS reboxes , Middle Earth Reboxes (12 to 24 infantry boxes with minimal price increases), etc...

Yeah ok, middle earth boxes were still more expensive than when released in 2001 but still. It was a good change. Sadly it only lasted like 1-2 years before GW started going back on track on everything.