PDA

View Full Version : The Sucess of Games Workshop



Chaplain Mortez
30-08-2007, 05:21
It's late, I have work tomorrow, but I feel like starting a new thread anyway.

I constantly hear on this forum about how Games Workshop is going to die because its rules are out-of-date. Or how it's not as good as the old days. Or how GW doesn't respect its veterans. Or how fluff is taking a backseat to streamlining. Or whatever the impending doom the next codex/army book expansion is going to do. Or.....you get the point.

But here's the real point: the success of GW forces GW to change.

Spiderman has an amazing quote: with great power comes great responsibility.

And to stay on top, you need to have actions like you're on top.

The reason any of this is relevant is because I think GW has grown out of the basement and into the office. What may have started as a fun little game has grown. Sometimes I wonder if that's what holds the company back is that it doesn't realize at times what it has gotten itself into. Example: it assumes everyone who looks at the hobby is a cheerful, fun, and fair person. The truth is that the game has expanded, and with that expansion it has attracted other sorts of people. Most of them fit the above description. However, GW has also attracted the sort who are not so great people. Most of this sort of person cheats (after all, it is a rule that the game is about you and your opponent having fun. If one of you isn't, then you're not following the rules. And not following the rules is cheating).

There is also a demand for better rules and what-have-you. To be honest, I think all three main systems have great rules. We, as many of us have been doing this for quite some time now, expect GW to keep delivering these great things. It may not be that there is anything wrong with the rules (when compared to other games), it's just that we've gotten used to the rules by now and want more. Like I said, if you want to be on top, your actions have to say you're on top.

GW runs into problems where its products are number one (its size proves it), but its product's quality may be on par with other games.

Is any of this making sense? Or is it just too late for me to be having this sort of talk?

Let me put it this way (and I hate doing things like this on a Warhammer website): Magic: the Gathering used to have ante. For those of you who don't know, each player revealed the top card of their deck. The winner of the game would get to keep their opponent's card. Richard Garfield, the game's original designer, put this mechanic into the game so that good players would be rewarded, and players with "rich kid syndrome" would not be in abundance. This was fine until the Black Lotus hit about $10 (US) on the secondary market (and it is currently worth about the same price as a used car). The game had become popular. Cards were in demand. People figured out some were better than others. Garfield had this to say a few years later:

"The success of the game killed it [ante]."

Today, I never even hear people talk about that mechanic of the game. Many people don't even know what it is (only those who are deep into the game's trivia or who have been playing long enough to remember).

Does anyone think GW has similar problems? Where certain aspects of the game are changed/lost/added because of how big GW has become?

Or am I tired and should have gone to bed before I even clicked "Post New Thread?"

Reece
30-08-2007, 05:43
I think you're on to something and I agree with you. I'm gonna link this somewhere else. :)

EDIT:
BTW, I remember Ante. We even used it. Although, most of the time, we agreed on the card instead of a random card. It sucked when you were up for winning a Mountain and losing a Shivan Dragon.

grickherder
30-08-2007, 06:21
Well, "staying the course" isn't going to work for GW. During their record profitability of the LOTR boom, they didn't use that revenue to get sustainable. They did some capital spending, but little else. Now that LOTR sales have receded, we see that unit sales of 40k and WFB are down 10-35% depending on the region!

All Lord of the Rings did was masked the decline of their other lines. And now they're losing money in the face of a hardening retail/consumer market.

Alienating existing customers never helps, but they still do that occasionally.

It is entirely possible that without the income from a successful license like LOTR, GW is too large for the niche nature of the product they sell. It could be that they'll lose money for the next decade as they shrink to a more sustainable size, get lean and cut their costs.

The question is though, can they finance that many years of losses, will the shareholders stand for it and could they potentially get bought out in the mean time? A full percent of GW's revenues comes from royalties, so properly exploited, what could that 1.4 million pounds a year be increased to?

GW is in trouble because they neglected repeat customers, jacked prices up like crazy and then let their costs run up through the roof. Sales down, costs up, dividend cut, stores closing, staff layoffs are not good signs.

I think everything you are saying is true if it was still 2002.

scratchbuilt
30-08-2007, 09:53
Just in case you're thinking my threads are doom saying or GW bashing. They aren't. I merely point out a change in direction they are taking. From cool idea factory, to model selling system. Some might prefer this change, but to me, its like Richey leaving the Manics. But I still like the models and background, and see GW making more money from here.

Putty
30-08-2007, 10:09
ahhh ante... it brings back fond memories...

But to compare MtG to WH is rather tricky. WotC had the foresight and guts to really streamline the CORE RULES of the game to very simple and clear terms. They were also willing to release ERRATAS, hire pro players to playtest extensively, never hesitate to ban cards (or just simply errata them) and kept the game format relatively simple but with tonnes of room for creativity.

These things are what GW need to do to their game(s) but if they are doing it, they are doing it rather clumsily.

I have stressed this over and over in various threads and to various people (and a good number agree with me):

DO NOT MIX FLUFF AND RULES IN THE SAME CONTEXT. Read MtG's rule book. Rules are rules... do not mix it with fluff. It confuses and makes the rule muddy. It also wastes alot of ink and paper. You want fluff? Read the novel or dump the entire thing in another section. Oh yah, while you're at it, leave out all the pretty coloured pictures of the model line (which tends to get outdated pretty quickly) Keep the rule book simple and thin and cheap.

Sure, GW can streamline their armies (read: nerf / dumbed down) but they have to streamline their rulebook also. Template rules. Yes or No. No "mays", "cans", and other ambigious things like "Does my Black Templar Crusader still carry a bolter / bolt pistol & CCW if he is equipped with a Lascannon?"

When GW gets their core rules and core army rules down, then they can start expanding on factions or even *gasp* new armies. With "template" rules and abilities stated clearly as a good foundation, all they need is to release a new rule book as and when they want.

eg: WHFB: All ranks must be at least 5 across. Universal rule.

8th Ed (lets imagine): All ranks must be at least 5 across AND 3 deep. Universal rule.

such updating to rules change how the game is played rather than revamping the entire army and "coaxing" players to buy new models.

I still think the problem with GW's line of miniature games is that the rulebooks, army books, codices are done VERY badly. and that effects the game on the whole. An entire game's foundation is built on it's rules. If it has sucky rules, it will be a sucky game. Only the magic of the warhammer universe has kept the game alive without it, it would have gone under a long time back.

Also, they should work towards releasing an entire series of updates enmass instead of trickles. For example: 2010: WHFB 8th edition release. rulebook & all existing armies. blam! and subsequent months, new models come in.

and then 2012: WH40k. 5th edition release. rulebook & all existing armies. same thing.

I really hate GW's trickle policy... its clumsy and rather unprofessional. They should really stop that and just do mass releases to kick start a new edition. Something that WotC does with their MtG line.

Chaos and Evil
30-08-2007, 10:20
and then 2012: WH40K. 5th edition release. rulebook & all existing armies. same thing.

I would expect the next rulebook for 40k a hell of a lot sooner than that.

Whilst taking some time out and balancing all rulebooks (And the game system) might appeal to gamers, it does not appeal to a company that wants to make money. :)

Vishok
30-08-2007, 16:34
I agree that with the new editions of the rules, the codeci and army books should be done at the same time. GW makes its money off models, so in the planning of a new edition, certainly you'd think they'd playtest and re-release the line of army / codex books at the same time?

This is the only thing that boggles my mind about GW. If the rules / armies were researched / released at the same time, then everything could work together and fit seamlessly if they hired better playtesters and editors.

I would I would release the rulebook, and then print a codex every month (remember early 3rd edition? this might have been the philosophy then) and smatterings of models for every army scattered within. It could work. And see all of this much improved.

Bob5000
30-08-2007, 21:57
I have stressed this over and over in various threads and to various people (and a good number agree with me):

DO NOT MIX FLUFF AND RULES IN THE SAME CONTEXT. Read MtG's rule book. Rules are rules... do not mix it with fluff. It confuses and makes the rule muddy. It also wastes alot of ink and paper. You want fluff? Read the novel or dump the entire thing in another section. Oh yah, while you're at it, leave out all the pretty coloured pictures of the model line (which tends to get outdated pretty quickly) Keep the rule book simple and thin and cheap.

Sure, GW can streamline their armies (read: nerf / dumbed down) but they have to streamline their rulebook also. Template rules. Yes or No. No "mays", "cans", and other ambigious things like "Does my Black Templar Crusader still carry a bolter / bolt pistol & CCW if he is equipped with a Lascannon?"

I still think the problem with GW's line of miniature games is that the rulebooks, army books, codices are done VERY badly. and that effects the game on the whole. An entire game's foundation is built on it's rules. If it has sucky rules, it will be a sucky game. Only the magic of the warhammer universe has kept the game alive without it, it would have gone under a long time back.

Also, they should work towards releasing an entire series of updates enmass instead of trickles. For example: 2010: WHFB 8th edition release. rulebook & all existing armies. blam! and subsequent months, new models come in.

I really hate GW's trickle policy... its clumsy and rather unprofessional. They should really stop that and just do mass releases to kick start a new edition. Something that WotC does with their MtG line.

Right on .

Rules are my main gripe with GW , and I have also posted on a number of occasions that the rules support lets down otherwise good support .

Is it my imagination , but is GW taking the tack that the rules are secondary to the painting / model collecting ? and thereby attempting to brush off poor rules as not important ?

The game is the reason I buy the models , without the game I buy no models at all , in fact , I see another game with far better written rules , and some of my Hobby dollar goes to that other company , the models have to be good too , so the whole package , rules , background and models need to be good

Grimstonefire
30-08-2007, 22:12
For GW to increase its profit, I feel they need to 'bolt on' subsidiaries which can be an instant boost. These would have to be in a related market so they have some knowledge, but by using their existing webstores etc they can bring in added cash. Online only from their side, but perhaps continuing to sell the products how/ where they were sold before.

I.e.
Warhammer Historical armies (real world), a potentially massive market.
New 'non-core' system(s) (mainly online sales). Either buying license/ copyrights or creating themselves.
Big increase in Forge World (an under used resource)
Restocking Black Library with all old titles.

These alone would be easy to do over 5-10 years.

Off topic, but interestingly IMO the share price is only being kept 'high' by the bulk purchases of funds. Now this is good if they expect the price to rise in the long term, but its worrying if they are only propping up the share price because they have so many... Its not like there is anything on the horizon to warrant a massive price hike either.

Omegakai
30-08-2007, 22:30
Actually the biggest reasons for sales dropping have to do with the internet and the Gaming industrie , meaning several things.
1. Increased competition.
previous to the internet boom it was harder for other company's to get a foot in, with out a local centralized store most gaming variants tended to die off. however with the use of the internet communities can be centralized viva forums and websites. I personally feel that GW has been slow on the uptake with utilizing the internet. Other gaming platforms have embraced it creating a fast effective center for feedback and discussion.
2. Growing gaming industry
The pc/console market is fast becoming the worlds largest economy, with a average release rate of something like 20 games a month its hard to compete with. This is something that GW has managed to cash in on however, and i expect the revenue generated from War hammer online will go to booster the coffers somewhat.
3. Changing times
it is my personal pov. that power gamers are recking the table top community. 1 horrible one sided Unfun or Unfair game can over shadow 10 fun and fair games.
why even bother going down to your local to face off against 10 powergamers. when you could just sit at home playing that single player console platform and get more enjoyment out of your day?
The social aspect of table top is dying off and alot of people don't even care about the social aspect. they care only about winning and talking smack and smashing their opponents.

spaint2k
31-08-2007, 07:17
I have felt that the trickle release method of codexes and army books was a mistake from the moment they first implemented it back with 4th edition WFB/2nd Ed 40K.

I would much rather see the following:
Simultaneous release of Rulebook and Armybook including all armies.
Improve White Dwarf by including cool variant armies like Genestealer cults, feral Orks etc.
Release new miniatures for several different lines at a time to keep interest up.
Give the sculptors more free reign to make cool stuff (look at Felix Paniagua's figures and tell me GW shouldn't have let him make stuff like that for them!)
Keep using White Dwarf to introduce campaigns, develop cool storylines and actually MAKE people want to buy the figures.
Best of WD compendiums.

Basically, send us back to the days of White Dwarf from about issue 110 to issue 135.

I said it in another thread recently, but I'm convinced that short model runs such as the Vostroyans are a great cash boost for GW. They don't require the investments of time and money that the big plastic releases do, they instill Shiny New Model Syndrome in the customers, and they drive other sales too (like Chimeras and so on) without necessarily requiring new rules.

I'm sure GW could do some really cool themed box sets like this:
Dwarfen Engineer Guild
Chaos Dwarf Raiders
PIRATES!!!
Empire Diplomat and Bodyguard
Eldar Exodite Knights
Genestealer Hybrids
Ork Painboy with squig-brained patient retinue
Mutants

The great thing about Warhammer is that the possibilities for exciting new models are endless, and the hobby's supposed to be all about the models! I feel like in the past we had so much more choice from GW, and every other White Dwarf seemed to have an article in it that made me want to start a new army. What we get now is streamlined blandness and plastic boxes of 20 figures that offer "endless conversion possibilities" as long as everyone looks the same.

I remain convinced that the talent of their sculptors is wasted on soulless boxes of plastic where the sculptor is told "make me four bodies, six heads and a dozen different weapon arms." They could be producing better figures for less and in a fraction of the production time.

(Hope this rambling post makes some sense. I've been disturbed several times while writing by pointless work-related matters.)

Steve

ashc
31-08-2007, 09:29
This is the first thread I have felt like responding to in weeks; The original question from the OP has really sparked a conversation that strikes a chord with me.

This will be the first place I will say this; I am leaving FIREBASE as editor. This is because I have finally had enough of Games Workshop and their quite frankly shocking treatment of their own products and customers in the past couple of years.

I am sick of rulesets that have more holes in than a string vest; counterintuitive army updates and a slow as hell release schedule. Constant cutting back of depth and humour in both the core products and from the company themselves. Releases of things people just do not want. Bland plastic ranges that are now turning back on themselves in regards to the old statement of 'they are now more convertable!'. Games Workshop are definitely not the 'premiere' modelling company out there and their rules are shockingly even worse.

Their constant crusade for kiddie cash leaves the most sour taste in my mouth for a long time. Apocalypse for 40k is a bloated attempt at a cashcow aimed at ADHD kiddies who have the attention span of a goldfish, whilst fantasy languishes with a terrible release schedule so far this year and last year's 'release' of 7th edition was abysmal.

I am sorry but Games Workshop need to DRASTICALLY rethink what the hell they are doing if they want my money for those games any more.

I now play non-mainstream wargames and magic: the gathering and I now have no qualms with dropping £65.00 for a booster box; but I had always considered whether it was worth buying a box of terminators for £25; The value for money just is not there any more. If Games Workshop manage to pull themselves out of their annual loss this year thanks to chaos marines, high elves, and apocalypse then hats off to them. But I certainly know that at the moment they will not be doing it via money from my wallet for those products. The whole company still needs a drastic shakeup in its core beliefs and focus before anything truly good will come of it.

Games Workshop have become bloated, greedy, and lazy over its product and its gamers. it is time people made a stand to show that they will not put up with this rubbish any longer.

I apologise if anyone considers this just a rant, but it has been brewing in my head and finally i needed to vent it here.

many thanks

Ash

EvC
31-08-2007, 10:31
Their constant crusade for kiddie cash leaves the most sour taste in my mouth for a long time. Apocalypse for 40k is a bloated attempt at a cashcow aimed at ADHD kiddies who have the attention span of a goldfish

Damn straight. I bet 90% of the entire Space Marine companies (Sold at £275 each) have fewer than half their contents ever put together, before the next huge 40K release comes along and their Christmas present gets forgotten about.

lord_blackfang
31-08-2007, 12:11
Heaven forbid that a company would cater to people who actually buy their product instead of just ranting about it on the internet.

All that's left is for someone to accuse GW of putting something in the water to give kids ADHD in the first place.

grickherder
31-08-2007, 13:05
The problem, blackfang, is that ashc does spend a lot of money on his hobbies. Notice what he mentioned about spending money on magic. And he was the editor of a fan magazine. That's exactly the wrong kind of customer to lose.

EvC
31-08-2007, 15:17
Heaven forbid that a company would cater to people who actually buy their product instead of just ranting about it on the internet.

It's true. The sensible thing would be for GW to just not bother with anything except 40K at all any more- Fantasy could easily be relegated to "Specialist Games" status, its release schedule currently actually being worse than Forge World alone's 40K release schedule, or what Specialist Games were putting out monthly about 3 years ago.

redbaron998
31-08-2007, 15:27
I fail to see how WHFB has such a bad realease schedule EvC. This year we had Empire, Orcs and Goblins, all the Nemesis crown terrain, and High Elfs in about a month.

40k had Dark Angels, Chaos (in about a month), the Apoclypse stuff, and (I know there was something else but cant remember what it was)

Thats about the same, maybe WHFB a little slower cause their Nemesis Crown is what Cities of death was for 40k, a good oppertunity to come out with terrain. I would not be surprised if in a year or 2 there is a WHFB equivalent of Apocylpse.

As far as realease goes they are more or less on par

Putty
31-08-2007, 15:45
I fail to see how WHFB has such a bad realease schedule EvC. This year we had Empire, Orcs and Goblins, all the Nemesis crown terrain, and High Elfs in about a month.

40k had Dark Angels, Chaos (in about a month), the Apoclypse stuff, and (I know there was something else but cant remember what it was)

Thats about the same, maybe WHFB a little slower cause their Nemesis Crown is what Cities of death was for 40k, a good oppertunity to come out with terrain. I would not be surprised if in a year or 2 there is a WHFB equivalent of Apocylpse.

As far as realease goes they are more or less on par

@Redbaron: I understand totally from your POV that recently their release schedule seem to be on the ball and "streaming"

However, alot of doubt surrounds the quality of these releases.

Alot of the concern surrounds IF they need brand new models, rules (read revamp) in the first place, instead of rectifying flaws, issues and loopholes in the ruleset and various faction "traits".

I feel that part of the whole argument (and only part of) is that frequent (or "streaming") releases isn't enough. The new releases deserve the quality and various rectifications to be improved on or corrected, instead of changing almost totally.

It would seem that GW is focusing totally on selling their product INSTEAD of fine tuning it, turning it into a tight ship (in this case their core rules AND faction ruleset) but instead figuring out various stratgies to entice players to buy more instead of playing more.

I stress again that selling more of their product doesn't mean their product has "improved". GW's WH rulesets need to be streamlined and set with good foundation before anything else. "Trickling" release schedules is only part of the problem, solving that (if you call releasing "new armies" over the course of a year ((but not all factions, which will mean releases will stretch over the course of 2 to 3 years(((!)))) still leaves lousy rules, sub-standard playtesting which decentralise the foundation of what a game is.

Russell's teapot
31-08-2007, 16:12
The main problem I see is that the product in terms of rules is so poor. All the codexes (not just the new ones - but they do seem to be getting worse) look like they haven't been playtested. The Rulebook is counter intuitive & confusing in its layout & is poorly worded in many areas leading to confusion.

This leads to 2 problems:
1. Older gamers become disillusioned with the new releases & see the company going down hill. "It wasn't like this when I was a kid" is pretty much what most of the rants boil down too - and there is truth behind this.

2. New gamers find it annoying & frustrating that they can't just play the game without having to ask 20 questions on the internet. Playing the game with proxies & small armies turns kids into gamers who become modellers & 'hobbyists' (I hate that term).

The model side of things is, IMHO, better than it's ever been - I'm not getting into that discussion here - but what use are great models if you need to sell poor rules to sell great models? Most of us are gamers rather then modellers & the kids (the core market - whether we like it or not) even more so.

The lack of response from GW to obvious holes & flaws in the rules books & codexes simply adds fuel to the fire of "well they don't care that their rules are rubbish, so why should I bother". And I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Sooner or later GW will need to realise that there are no "new gamers" left as everyone's tried it who wants to & is sick of their shoddy service.

It's a shame, I've been playing for nearly 18 years now (damn I'm old) - it just doesn't feel the same anymore :(

RT

asmodai_dark86
31-08-2007, 16:12
They are acting like they can beat their rivals by volume of sales, and by a really high quality product alone. A plan like this is seriously flawed if the competition is also high quality at a cheaper price, and are rapidly increasing their sales.

Erm.. high sales and high quality product do equate to a good buisness model really - yeh the rules may suck to you, but theres nowt to stop you grabbing a pen and paper and letting you change the odd thing. Its about fun after all.

At the end of the day though, show me one company that produces models at the same quality and cheaper, and ill eat my hat.

On the qualitiy side theres rackham and wargods - Rackhams confrontation (The cynwall miniatures in particular) look stunning but cost a bloody fortune, and Wargods is as close as you'll get to warhammer without buying a GW mini but are as dear as there GW counterparts.

I keep hearing that warmachines cheaper to play, which is true, but for the amount of miniatures on the table you might as well play a combat patrol game. Plus all the warmachine players I know have large collections, and given the prices of the figures whilst the sculpts may be on par your certainly paying more for it.

Reaper is to some peoples tastes, but not mine. Plus its majority metal and you really couldnt use em to make an army.

Mongoose never had the right idea - there essentially specialist games with a ton of cash and no firm hand on the rudder. They promise a lot, and deliver little. There only real money spinner was Starship troopers and even that soon got buggered up due to delays and 'problems'.

Lets also not forget that GW Mianl Order are legends - Ive had stuff replaced within within a few days ranging from odd looking models, mispacked, or simply missing, and Ive always been allowed to keep what they sent in the first place.


The miniatures world is like a night out on a friday with a few hours to pull before closing - You have the stunner that you can never have (Rackham), theres the easy bird that looks good but it'll cost you (warmachine), then theres the fat bird who with a few pints in you looks alright (Mongoose), theres the girls who are quite happy being single (Heresy, Hasslefree, Reaper, Wargods)
Then theres the girl you know you'd marry, the pretty one with that little je ne c'est quoi thats been looking at you all night - it starts all wonderful and cuddly but you slowly get more and more cynical until it becomes a love hate relationship as you realise she's the village bike. As you have kids and she wants a house and a car, and inflation carries on going up, you realise this isnt what you entered into the relationship for but cant see a way out, so you simply carry on and hope everything will work itself out sooner or later.

Putty
31-08-2007, 16:31
The miniatures world is like a night out on a friday with a few hours to pull before closing - You have the stunner that you can never have (Rackham), theres the easy bird that looks good but it'll cost you (warmachine), then theres the fat bird who with a few pints in you looks alright (Mongoose), theres the girls who are quite happy being single (Heresy, Hasslefree, Reaper, Wargods)
Then theres the girl you know you'd marry, the pretty one with that little je ne c'est quoi thats been looking at you all night - it starts all wonderful and cuddly but you slowly get more and more cynical until it becomes a love hate relationship as you realise she's the village bike. As you have kids and she wants a house and a car, and inflation carries on going up, you realise this isnt what you entered into the relationship for but cant see a way out, so you simply carry on and hope everything will work itself out sooner or later.

Dude, I love your analogy... i'm tagging it!

You have a point about them models from different companies all being rather equally expensive... but warhammer (in general) takes the top prize for being expensive in the end because the sheer amount of models you need to buy to field a sizable army.

asmodai_dark86
31-08-2007, 17:47
But thats relative really - One warmachine box set comes in at around 20-25 pound. A tactical squad with a librarian or chaplain is slightly more then that if you buy from GW direct (its much cheaper online due to the relatively cheap tactical box).

If you want a large warmachine army though, you do end up spending a lot more because its an all metal range and you have to transport the buggers more carefully where as a plastic marine army is fairly sturdy (like rocks if you use plastic cement...)

The reason why GW appears more expensive is that they increase there prices a lot, where as the others have infrequent large jumps - take heresy which has just jumped by 25% across the range (okay, thats only another pound, but that quickly adds up - granted He does a lot of discounts but even then...).

Cheers fella, a bit more time and a bit more rest and that'd be funnier but meh im tired and I have work in an hour...

EvC
31-08-2007, 17:56
I fail to see how WHFB has such a bad realease schedule EvC. This year we had Empire, Orcs and Goblins, all the Nemesis crown terrain, and High Elfs in about a month.

Orcs were last year. Empire was the very start of this year, High Elves will be the very end of the year. With their four new plastic sets and one re-done unit. Orcs, Empire and Dwarfs got a few more releases in the summer. The terrain was nice, but only a few sets. Might Empires too, and that's all.


Thats about the same, maybe WHFB a little slower cause their Nemesis Crown is what Cities of death was for 40k, a good oppertunity to come out with terrain. I would not be surprised if in a year or 2 there is a WHFB equivalent of Apocylpse.

As far as realease goes they are more or less on par

You cannot be serious. What's your job, Fox News reporter? When Cities of Death was released for 40K, the Imperial Guard got a whole new type of trooper (Vostroyan), and several other armies received new releases. Three armies got a couple of releases each for Nemesis Crown this year. There were more releases for the Death Korps of Krieg (Plus accompanying terrain) from Forgeworld than there are for High Elves and the Empire put together! That doesn't even include everything else released by Forgeworld, or the main body of releases for 40K!

Do you still wish to claim that the WHFB release schedule is "just a bit slower"? Because that would make you the most deluded person I've seen on the internet since I stopped discussing Creationism online...

Putty
31-08-2007, 18:58
But thats relative really - One warmachine box set comes in at around 20-25 pound. A tactical squad with a librarian or chaplain is slightly more then that if you buy from GW direct (its much cheaper online due to the relatively cheap tactical box).

If you want a large warmachine army though, you do end up spending a lot more because its an all metal range and you have to transport the buggers more carefully where as a plastic marine army is fairly sturdy (like rocks if you use plastic cement...)

The reason why GW appears more expensive is that they increase there prices a lot, where as the others have infrequent large jumps - take heresy which has just jumped by 25% across the range (okay, thats only another pound, but that quickly adds up - granted He does a lot of discounts but even then...).

Cheers fella, a bit more time and a bit more rest and that'd be funnier but meh im tired and I have work in an hour...

Gaaahhhh!!! ITs too long! can't fit it into my signature! *Waves angry fist at the moon*

Yah, the expensive aspect is rather relative, because primary, your paying "metal" prices for plastic models when it comes to GW products.

Furthermore, the pricing of the models depend what type of units they are. I think it is plain silly to pay (in my country) $70 for a dreadnaught (tiny tiny model of 1) compared to a box of 10 tactical marines for $45.

A box of 5 jump pack SMs cost the same as a box of 10 tactical marines. I'm paying more for less! Why?

*Just because they are different unit types*

Pfftt....

Same thing with them GK terminators. $100 for GKT compared to $65 for a box of 5 plastic SM termies. I'm paying $35 more because they are metal?!?!?!

Its crazy i tell you!

BTW: All prices are in Singaporean dollars. (x 1.5 vs USD, x 3 vs British pounds) We got the same type of economy as the forementioned countries but our currency suck (although it is the strongest in the region) because we are in South East Asia.

Pokpoko
31-08-2007, 19:00
1)
If you want a large warmachine army though, you do end up spending a lot more because its an all metal range and you have to transport the buggers more carefully where as a plastic marine army is fairly sturdy (like rocks if you use plastic cement...)
2)
The reason why GW appears more expensive is that they increase there prices a lot, where as the others have infrequent large jumps

1)ok,...i fail to see something.you said that one box of WM unit/heavy jack costs roughly the same as 40k squad and a single model. so,buying the same number of squads should cost the same too,right? 4 boxes of WM stuff=4 boxes of GW stuff(+2 blisters for argument's sake). i fail to see how them being metal makes it any more expensive later on? superglue is actually cheaper than plastic glue, and the carrying case costs the same also. plus, 4 boxes of WM stuff come as about 500pts, a :standard: point level of the game,while 4 boxes of GW stuff are't even close to the 1,5k-2k level needed for full GW game experience.

as for the 2)
...ok, i always though GW seems more expensive because you need tons of the little plastic men to play the game while many of their competitors require as few as 10 to 20 models for "real" game,but maybe it's a matter of perspective:p

Putty
01-09-2007, 05:21
It seems that you are not familiar with the way you price a model.

First there is the basic cost for a product this is:

1 Raw Materials (with plastics neglectable as the costs of plasxtix is low)
2 Production cost

in case of models the production cost is the mould, and the design process. It so happens to be that making a mould in plastic is very expensive. Regardless of what plastic mould you make; the price of the mould is the same. So making a mould for terminators equals that of a tactical squad.

now that you know the cost for a mould you need to spread those costs over the amount of times you can sell a box.A Tactical squad you will sell more times then a Terminator squad this explains the price difference.

funny enough the price difference is about the same as the points difference

a tactical sqaud: rougly 200 points
a terminator squad roughly 240 points

a tactical squad 30 euros
a terminator squad 35 euros

you can calculate the difference for a assault sqd and you will find the same.

Ok, that makes abit of sense.

But how do you justify the plastic dreadnaught model (which cost less points wise to a unit of SM tactical marines) which price is almost double that of a SM Tactical box?

Ditto with Land Speeder Tornados vs the dreadnaught.

This diminishing returns policy of model pricing is mind boggling!

asmodai_dark86
01-09-2007, 06:01
POKPOKO -
1) Okay Im going to split this into two parts so bare with me.
Ill take the Cygnar range as my example here, and Ill be using the prices from arcane miniatures as Im a brit. All prices are roughly right as I cant be arsed being correct at this time of morning.

My original comment was regarding the starter box, which is the first thing most people will pick up - thats about 20-25 quid. Compare this to a Tactical squad and hero which is roughly the same, depending of course on where you buy it, so roughly the same price for the same level of game - skirmishing combat patrol.
The trenchers unit costs 16 quid, which is the average cost of a Cygnar unit - the supplied is the minimum unit you can take, and can be suplimented by blisters (I believe). Each set contains six miniatures - the recommended retail price would make that 3 quid a soldier. Compare that to the marine which is cheaper if you know where to look (a lot cheaper...), comes with the complete squad and enough gubbinz to keep you busy (plasma guns, melta etc).
Take the new devestator box - yes it costs the same as a tactical, but you'll be able to kit out a second squad if your not fussy about your guns, or even simply trade them with a friend - whilst having one less model the devestator squad becomes, in the long run, better value for money, where as the warmachine force is always going to cost exactly what it says on the tin (theres no corner cutting as you can with warhammer).

My second section of response is a general thing, and its the part that mosts annoys me about gamers.

The simple fact is, if you need a 2000pts army to enjoy a game, and then complain, then you shouldnt do it in the first place.
In the best game I ever had, my 1000pts Tau army battered my opponents army of space wolves which happened to be twice the size, in four turns (five if you count the final turn where his three remaining marines rallied and got pasted by rail fire).
The only people who really need 2000 pts armies as a default are the tornie players. Seeing as though a tornie is usually over two days, requires travel, and costs a fortune for the ticket, you really cant complain about buying a couple of dozen figures.

I used to run a club and I had two types of kid there - the rich ones who'd buy 2000pts armies, and the poor ones who had a tactical squad and there wits. The kids who'd bought the large armies because, as you say, they needed it to play a game, would frequently get pasted when the poorer kids got there hands on a few more models because they has learnt how to play and every choice was a thought out tactical one - they bought what was needed and not what they thought was required.
I still remember how one rich kid rubbed his flash new 3000 points guard army in everyones face - and how Ben, the first kid to play him, fought him to a standstill with less points after everyone chipped in and lent him a unit or two - sure Ben got mauled, but the rich kid had less then a dozen guard left by the end. Think we all gave him a pat on the back for that one, good stuff.


The funniest and most memorable was a week or so later, in a mega game, where he deployed his now 4000pts marine across from me. I had a few of the poorer lads with tactical squads sit to one side. I had one of my allied players open up a hole on his left flank, whilst I started to move into his right.
We started splatting each other for awhile and he was pasting me quite well, his guard wrecking havoc and general bragging on his part about how well his huge army was doing. My troops were about to break through his lines so I ordered the poorer kids in and I still smile to this day at home happy there were at ripping that guys army to shreds.
'I killed most of your army Mark' said the rich kid
'Yep, but I have enough marines to last a few more turns, plus there marines to back me up - you've got nowt left'

Those three lads were ace - give them an extra squad or two depending on what they were fighting and they'd tear up any army.

What im trying to say is that the game is as fun as you make it, and you dont need to be the same points as your opponent to give em a slapping - if your reasonable, spend wisely, and learn from mistakes, you'll be happy with what you can get your hands on, rather then feeling the need for a dozen more units.

2) Thats just because your not playing the right game for you, let me demonstrate...
Apocolypse - Thousands of buggers, costs a fortune
3000pts - Large game
1500pts - Normal game, the most comman
1000pts - Beginners
500pts - Combat patrol
One squad - Kill team
One random collection of models - Necromunda (free off the website)
Three models = Inqusitor.

Inquisitor can be played with 40k models, and is hillariously fun (I have tales of such games, but im tired)

Chaplain Mortez
01-09-2007, 06:41
I think I missed my point and didn't convey what I was hoping I would when I started this thread.

Ashc stated he would have no problem dropping 65 quid on what is essentially a box of cardboard. The reason is that he is confident he is getting his money's worth. I am willing to bet that he is absolutely pumped about the next Magic set to be released, probably much more than I am. He will probably spend said quid when that set comes out. With no fear about how he currently plays the game.

All I hear when a new army book/codex is announced is bitching. Normally, I refrain from using strong language on this forum because I want to convey a strong opinion with meaningful thoughts. But that is exactly what goes on. Not moaning, not complaining, not whining, but flat-out bitch fest galore. Now, to me that says something. Where's the romance? I find this lack of faith in the GW community disturbing.

There is a great expectation from players because of how great GW is. Where is the proof GW is great? Here it is: they got the Lord of the Rings license to make a table-top war game. That says a lot about their reputation. I wonder if they asked for the rights or if the rights were presented to them. We as GW consumers expect these things from them. The reason is because GW has been so successful. Neither Privateer Press, Rackham, WizKids, or any other gaming company can pull off the things GW can.

And we want these things to be delivered to us. We demand it. We deserve it because it is a great hobby. It is our right to enjoy this game if we decide to buy it.

So my question is: did we get this expectation because of GW's success?

I'd have to say "yes."

At the end of the day, GW games are probably are on-par with any other game on the market. However, this just isn't right. There's no doubt in my mind that GW is number one. There is the thought that it is still comparable to something that should be beneath it.

There is competition and there shouldn't be.

Far as I'm concerned, no other card game (collectible or otherwise, even Poker) is better than Magic: the Gathering. The reason is that Wizards of the Coast has constantly met my expectations and constantly exceeded them. Even now, as the summer is coming to the end and I trudge back up to school with nowhere to play my beloved game, I will still keep up on the game. I will still hold onto my cards. I will still net deck. If Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! decided to show up on my doorstep and I found myself stumbling into rooms with the ladies or professors playing them, I would refuse to pick them up simply because nothing could replace that part of me.

Could I say the same about GW?

Yes--but barely.

I'm scared to death what the next codex will do to my Feral Orks. My scratch-built squiggoths may no longer be in use. And that's not right, simply because I should be looking forward to the next book, not dreading it.

Honestly though, that last bit was for purpose of argument. I can't wait for the next Ork book. To side with GW, they never really said that the army list I decided to use was, in any way, going to be an "official" army. I should be grateful I got to play that amazing list. It was a lot of fun.

It's things like this that have made a lot of players quit. GW delivered. It still does. We just keep wanting them to keep delivering. We should do this. It's just that GW may not have kept up with it.

Here's a good analogy for you all (hope everyone understands, not everyone celebrates for a variety of reasons):

Think back to Christmas when you were a kid.

Was there ever a year where you didn't get your number one gift?

You got number two.

You put it on there.

You wanted it.

Your parents got it for you.

But number one?

Not under the tree.

It wasn't in there when you opened up all your presents.

Hell, number two was more expensive and harder to get.

You really just wanted that one gift, though.

I think GW is kind of the same way. Sure, it's a great company, but there really isn't any reason it could perform better. If it wants to be number one, it has to perform like number one.

Now, I'm off to bed, as that's the second time I've typed my post because the first time I misclicked and had the whole thing get erased and had to redo everything. I just wanted to clear some things up before this thread got any bigger with talk of sales, times past, poor rules, or whatever.

I just am wondering if GW has outgrown its shoes as a small gaming company, and has had to sacrifice parts of itself along the way.

spaint2k
01-09-2007, 07:07
Everything I was saying in my post above is something I feel has been lost due to GW's success. Their marketing methods, trickle release methods, and switch to plastics have all come about as the company has grown into something very big and very successful. Success has forced GW to change into a beast of sorts that demands more success in terms of profitability.

Has this success affected our expectations? Yes, because one would expect success to bring benefits, but many long term customers/gamers/hobbyists are seeing a gradual pruning away of the things that made GW's products special and only the company bottom line stands to benefit from streamlining and reducing variety.

Nice Star Wars allusion in your second real paragraph btw.

Steve

Axel
01-09-2007, 07:42
Honestly the "lump release" is one of the things that really bothers me. They should not horde rules and miniatures (and rumours before) for the one big splash, but should continually put out what is there, so that we may:
a) spend the money continually in smaller lumps
b) take part in the development process (rumour and prereleases)
c) get something new every other week or month, not twice a year

For Apocalypse (which I think is a pretty promising development) I can afford to buy perhaps one major release, when over time I would probably have bought three. Anyway...
I realize that this is probably not the same for rules, but with the sheer amount of stuff out there it is not possible to publish all codizes at the same time. This would mean a MAJOR effort one year, including writing and playtesting, and then let most of the people involved there stranded until the next major uphaul. No way to do this...
A possible road would be to create "core armies" (and kill the tournament core at the same time) with the release and then put out the Codizes with special units and rules, with lots of prereleases and testruns done via WD.

What GW really (really really really) needs is a way to accept feedback from the gamers without getting drowned in it. This part of their company culture has vanished, and it is admittedly some hard work. With thousands of gamers with very different opinions out there it is not easy to control feedback, but they must work on that part. How can you setup efficient QM if there is no stable wand sane ay for those who actually use the problem to evaluate the product. How does GW work with customer feedback?

I have been using GW products for well over twenty years, and I have not yet encountered a feedback formular that would create serious data to work with at GWs side.

Archaon
01-09-2007, 08:52
Honestly the "lump release" is one of the things that really bothers me. They should not horde rules and miniatures (and rumours before) for the one big splash, but should continually put out what is there, so that we may:
a) spend the money continually in smaller lumps
b) take part in the development process (rumour and prereleases)
c) get something new every other week or month, not twice a year



You do get something new every month from GW.. it just may not be something that's for you. It's also about the design process.. new books take tim to produce and sometimes whole units get redesigned so the boxes have to be redesigned too. How can you do that on time when the accompanying book isn't nearly finished and things may change?

And how will you take part in the development process? You'd be opening Pandora's box when you let customers decide the details of army rules because a Marine hater will nerf them down while his own army gets pushed to the extreme.
I have only faith in a small percentage of gamers to remain neutral when working over rules and i can't even say that would apply to official GW games developers.

For me GW has two major problems.. the cost of running their business is way too high and their customer service for the range of their products is way too low.

GW has tons of stores and to me that's an outdated business model for this niche. It was very valid in the 80s and 90s and it helped them become the biggest kid on the block because it boosted their visibility and gave people a gathering point for their games.

Nowadays the internet has replaced much of the appeal of GW stores because people have learned they can order much cheaper from the net and have it delivered free shipping to their doorstep (Ebay has done its share too). GW stores have now only one thing going for them.. gaming space and from what i hear and have experienced some of their stores are so small that when you have a mid sized amount of customers in it's almost impossible to get a relaxed game in.

My solution would be to either go franchise like McDonalds where you dump off all the costs and responsibilities on someone else while cashing in the royalties or close down all the stores save the ones in major cities (maybe concentrate them and rent big stores with several floors maybe) and use the saved money to help out independent stores by providing them with free gaming boards once in a while and other goodie support so they can take over promoting your products.

The franchise idea has one weak spot now because GW is in trouble and has diminishing returns and more competition so running your own exclusive GW store might not be so appealing as it was during the 90s and maybe early 00s.

Next would be customer support.. i believe they need a department at least 3 times the current size to speed up game development and above all provide cutomer support. When you have such an expensive product you need to convince the customer that your product is worth it and that he'll get the most out of it. GW has been and is pitiful in that area.. armies that have been out for more than a year are still waiting for a FAQ or even an errata. GW notoriously refuses to fine tune their armies when it is proven that there are holes in the rules which need to be closed (simple printable pdf would be enough until the next print run of the book) etc.

Their player base has expanded tremendously in the 90s and 00s and what did they do? Reduce the size of their customer support.

GW certainly has done several massive mistakes and there are people here with direct experience from behind the curtain which don't paint a prettier picture but i also believe GW is salvageable because they have good IPs and their products are still good. They just need to come to the realization that sometimes you need to slaughter a few holy cows so that other may live on and become healthier.

grickherder
01-09-2007, 09:12
There is a great expectation from players because of how great GW is. Where is the proof GW is great? Here it is: they got the Lord of the Rings license to make a table-top war game. That says a lot about their reputation.

At the time of getting the license. Not too sure about now. I wonder if a company like New Line or some other big movie house would be so willing to hook up with a company that went from record profitability to losses so quickly. Would I think a company that is closing stores and chopping staff be capable of deliverying maximum royalty dollars? Might be better to go with Wizkids or WotC or even a larger toy company. GW had momentum going into the LOTR days. Now they don't.

They are the number one miniatures company by size. And it's questionable whether or not their size can be maintained without getting powerful licenses like LOTR. Their non-lotr unit sales are down, down, down. And now that LOTR has run it's course, it is down to about 10% of GW's revenue.

It could be that we'll see a few years of GW shrinking, streamlining, etc.,. I don't think we'll see growth for quite some time.

grickherder
01-09-2007, 09:15
And how will you take part in the development process? You'd be opening Pandora's box when you let customers decide the details of army rules because a Marine hater will nerf them down while his own army gets pushed to the extreme.
I have only faith in a small percentage of gamers to remain neutral when working over rules and i can't even say that would apply to official GW games developers.

I would suggest checking out the amazing rules that are produced as a result of fan input in the Specialist Games range. The current Bloodbowl rules, all the army lists being developed for Epic: Armageddon. They expertly used a "vault" of playtest rules that were completely open to fan comment. Then a group of trusted fans (in the case of bloodbowl, the Bloodbowl Rules Council") voted on everything. It worked amazingly. It's still working.

"By gamers for gamers" will always produce superior rules than "by corporation for maximum profit." And GW has proven that they can use "by gamers for gamers" when they want to.

Easy E
01-09-2007, 10:54
I just am wondering if GW has outgrown its shoes as a small gaming company, and has had to sacrifice parts of itself along the way.

Yes.

That's part of the transition from private games company to public comapny. You are no longer working to please the customer, you are working to please the shareholder. Many times their interests do not line up. As a public company, if the shareholders and the gamers interests do not line up guess who loses?

Aundae
01-09-2007, 11:40
There is a constant debate on which game system actually costs you more to play. These miniatures are metal, you need more of these to play, etc… After reading a bunch of them I decided to price out my two favorite armies because I play both hoards and 40K. My motive in the end is to have fun and hang out with a good group of guys but in the end I was curious as to how much I actually spent. So here it is as succinctly as I can put it. Don’t gripe about my army selection either, this is what I have, and this is what I play with. The points have been left off due to copyright, but the cost is in American dollars not including sales tax or any web discounts. I'll let you come to your own conclusion.

Pokpoko
01-09-2007, 13:15
*SNIP
ok...1)
a starter for WM/Hordes gives you a really decent force to play around with, and gives you an isntant acces to most of the tactics and moves availible in the game. a box of SM and a hero gives you a very poor devised and EXTREMLY limited scope of tactics. sure,you can have fun like that,but it's nowhere near the "real" 40k or WHB level of gameplay.

number of minis-sure,you do get more in GW platics. but you also need lots more (well,unless you go for all-infantry army,but even then the number,for Hordes at least,is still lower or just-as in case of more "elite" GW armies.)

tourneys-sorry, but for me tournament is THE standard to which i measure things since it reflects the trends in a game best.

the school club example is well,not really showing anything to tell the truth. you can have fun with smaller games, with imbalanced armies, wasn't even going to despute that(took me 5 years to get a 2k Tau army,when playing games over 2250pts half my lizardmen army was papercut proxies). i can have a hell of a fun playing a demo of a game,but that's it-a demo,it lacks the options,it lacks the depth. with skirmish or half-skirmish games like WM i can play a full-fledged game with the same number of minis that would give me a "demo" of 40k, so the poorer kid would be able to smash the rich one on equal terms.
or i just may be an powergaming obsessed dick,who knows:p

Mikhaila
01-09-2007, 13:42
Their constant crusade for kiddie cash leaves the most sour taste in my mouth for a long time. Apocalypse for 40K is a bloated attempt at a cashcow aimed at ADHD kiddies who have the attention span of a goldfish, whilst fantasy languishes with a terrible release schedule so far this year and last year's 'release' of 7th edition was abysmal.

And yet, in my shops, it's the veterans that are all excited about Apocalypse. We're all breaking out our old models and playing bigger games to get ready for it. All of my pre-orders for big boxes are from veterans. Youngest to order the 450.00 deal are two 17 year olds who are splitting it between them. Both have played for 6 years, one attends GT's every year, the other paints better than 99% of people playing the game. I've had no ADHD kiddies ordering sets. As for 7th edition fantasy, i don't know what your talking about. It was well recieved when it came out. It sparked a huge amount of gaming, brought back a lot of older players. Skull pass is an insanely good deal, and with dwarves just before, and orcs, empire, and soon High Elves following it, thats a pretty good release schedule.

heretics bane
01-09-2007, 16:50
Well, "staying the course" isn't going to work for GW. During their record profitability of the LOTR boom, they didn't use that revenue to get sustainable. They did some capital spending, but little else. Now that LOTR sales have receded, we see that unit sales of 40k and WFB are down 10-35% depending on the region!

GW tough that the LOTR sales where goign to last so they bought the licence to them and that cost a hell of a lot of money which has now come back round to bite them in the butt big time, thats what a good friend and ex-red shirt told me about why GW is now trying to sell more and more and constantly trying to bring new people in, thats why everything is/has been watered down to help the new people like painting guides and new foundation paint, paint guides no longer have "use scab red to do the cloak" etc. now there just " paint the coat red" which is annoying me along with the flow of annoying young people coming in

asmodai_dark86
01-09-2007, 17:16
a starter for WM/Hordes gives you a really decent force to play around with, and gives you an isntant acces to most of the tactics and moves availible in the game. a box of SM and a hero gives you a very poor devised and EXTREMLY limited scope of tactics. sure,you can have fun like that,but it's nowhere near the "real" 40K or WHB level of gameplay.

Thats excrement of the highest order.

Ask any good marine player and he'll tell you that his army wins or looses on the strength of his tactical squads - not the dreadnought which costs more, nor the land raider. The hero can be kitted out in various ways and it all depends on what you need him for, the first combat squad can be given a melta, plasma, or flammer depending on what you want them to do and the wrong choice will cost you dearly, the sargeant can be upgraded to a veteran for added punch, and of course, you can add in a rocket launcher.
Tactically, theres little you cant do with a tactical squad with the exception of a good quality assault phase - even then if you go down the drop pod route and get rid of the missile launcher you can still bring the pain to the enemy.
With such small games, you can play the quickly, meaning lots of intense short games involving lots of thinking - you cant afford to loose a man let alone the squad. That my friend, is the strength of squad level tactics.

Now this is my personal choice - if you believe that you 'need' a 2000pts army then thats you choice, but you cant complain at needing such a huge force if thats where you find your enjoyment. Personally, give me a wolf guard champion and two squads of grey hunters and Im a happy chappy - I'd rather enjoy the game then play to win.


number of minis-sure,you do get more in GW platics. but you also need lots more (well,unless you go for all-infantry army,but even then the number,for Hordes at least,is still lower or just-as in case of more "elite" GW armies.)

Lets stay with the tactical squad example - for every two war jacks or unit, you can buy a tactical box. Now you can assemble that as is, paint them in veteran colors, save the missile launchers from a bunch of squads and make a devestator squad - with a bit of basic thinking you can save yourself a fair bit of cash, but if your paying full whack for your 40k/fantasy army then you cant complain as no ones forcing you to play at that level


tourneys-sorry, but for me tournament is THE standard to which i measure things since it reflects the trends in a game best.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/gt-promo/1/

£55 for a tornie? And thats honestly where the game is reflected best. The game is not reflected by the size of someones wallet but by the quality of the person playing and there army. To judge the whole hobby by the tornies is ridiculous.



the school club example is well,not really showing anything to tell the truth. you can have fun with smaller games, with imbalanced armies, wasn't even going to despute that(took me 5 years to get a 2k Tau army,when playing games over 2250pts half my lizardmen army was papercut proxies). i can have a hell of a fun playing a demo of a game,but that's it-a demo,it lacks the options,it lacks the depth.

Im sure you can tell the kids I played with it was demos, but they'd disagree entirely. Whilst most of them never went into a game thinking they'd win, when they did it was a great vibe around the entire club, and it was often a bloody mess. The fact is we may have gotten one visitor a month, with the mega game drawing two - my ex-missus and her best mate...


With skirmish or half-skirmish games like WM i can play a full-fledged game with the same number of minis that would give me a "demo" of 40K, so the poorer kid would be able to smash the rich one on equal terms.
or i just may be an powergaming obsessed dick,who knows

If I say the second one I'd be done for flamming :P
Seriously though, you dont need a full army for a demo or decent game of 40k. If you go look at 2nd edition it was a skirmish level game, but got bigger because thats what people wanted - they wanted to play with bigger armies, have less characters, and an easier way to deal with tanks. if you play a lot of games at combat patrol level, you'll find it to be a lot more then the larger game because it forces you to really think rather then saying 'meh I lost two squads and my skirmish screen, who cares'

Pokpoko
01-09-2007, 19:15
If I say the second one I'd be done for flamming :Pif it's consentual between two adults,then why?:p


Tactically, theres little you cant do with a tactical squad with the exception of a good quality assault phase - even then if you go down the drop pod route and get rid of the missile launcher you can still bring the pain to the enemy.
yeah right. with more than TWO tactical squads that is. i'v played quite a few small point games due to time constraints, and as a friend of mine put it "he who moves from the cover first loses". with two tactical sqads you can a)stand and shoot and b)stand and shoot, because trying to assult anything on foot is a...bad joke to say the least. as for hero, sure,you can give him even two tonnes of stuff, so what if there are TWO good outfits and the rest is sub-par(yeah, PLENTY of use the bionics are><)


Lets stay with the tactical squad example - for every two war jacks or unit, you can buy a tactical box.
ok. i but the starter box, one additional jack and two infantry boxes. that's 500 points, and i get to use a full array of skills, wepons etc. the same amount got you a hero blister, tactical sqad and three additional squad boxes of your choice. with a bit of tweaking you'll manage to hit 1k points, something considered a small battle with limited chocice of units in 40k.


£55 for a tornie?well, you have my condolations, i wasn't aware UK tourne scene sucked that much? don't you have normal, non-GW tournaments by gaming clubs etc?
The game is not reflected by the size of someones wallet but by the quality of the person playing and there armyof course it isn't, army of any number of points will cost you about the same number of monies in most cases. and tourneys are the measuring gauge in such a respect that they provide a level playing field for players from different locations.

Whilst most of them never went into a game thinking they'd win, when they did it was a great vibe around the entire club, and it was often a bloody mess.that's really cool, i still remeber my first games with the lizardmen played at school after the lessons, with totally nonsense army lists and very little in the way of actual rules knowledge.i'v said repeatedly-you CAN have FUN with lower points. i never argued that. i just argue that at lower level MANY tactics and nuances of the game are simply lost, beacuse you lack the choices to implement them. a game with 2 SM squads and a hero won't see any sweeping flank-rolling, breakthroughs or suprise traps simply because you don't have any units to do so.in WM those 3 warjacks you get in the starter give you far more freedom of choice on the field than those 10 marines and a hero,as simple as that. think of it like that: in 40k, a squad really represents a single gaming piece with multiple wounds and weapons. in WM each big model is an actual gaming piece, and in a skirmish game EVERY model is an actual gaming piece, you can have 10 models in a roster, and every single one of them armed differently, with different skills. 10 models in SM army means you have 10x the same stat-line and between 6 and 10 times the same weapon. the only variation is two different weapons in the squad and a single model with a different stat line(veteran sarge).see the difference?

lord_blackfang
01-09-2007, 19:37
Gods, are we arguing cost of armies again? A 50-model GW army is more expensive than a 10-model WM army. What a newsflash.

However, the correct GW game to compare Warmachine to is Necromunda, not 40k. And as far as cost goes, Necromunda wins hands-down. One squad box, one free downloadable rulebook, and you're sorted. Thanks for playing.

Pokpoko
01-09-2007, 19:45
oh come on, everyone loves those threads. and i was playing nice comparing the game to 40k rather than more appropriate WHB:p
as for "the dead game with zero support" you mentioned-did you take into account the cost of terrain needed to play it? vhs and books can do only so much:D

Biggles
01-09-2007, 19:51
I just wondered how you worked out that WFB was the correct game to compare WM to?

lord_blackfang
01-09-2007, 19:53
Proper terrain costs time, not money :D

Pokpoko
01-09-2007, 20:09
I just wondered how you worked out that WFB was the correct game to compare WM to?
well,them both being fantasy and not skirmish may have swayed my opinion a bit:p(i think i'm getting addicted to this emot:angel:)

Proper terrain costs time, not money i'd say both if you want anything over the usual green hills of altdorf terrain, or just money if you know you'r likely to kill yourself and your family in the process of making and decide to commision the job.:cries:

Biggles
01-09-2007, 20:46
But is Necromunda not a fantasy game, and is it a skirmish game? I've ended Necromunda campaigns with a gang pretty large in size and being able to make full use of battle tactics instead of "skirmishing".

simonr1978
01-09-2007, 22:53
Ended not began, it's hard to start a Necromunda game with a gang over a dozen models though isn't it? And by the usual yardsticks, Necromunda cannot be considered a Fantasy game (Considering I may be opening a veritable can of worms here, but...), anything that involved machineguns, Rocket Launchers, laser rifles, pistols, etc really doesn't fit into the typical "fantasy" genre of Orcs, Elves, Goblins, Bows and arrows, Swords and shields...

asmodai_dark86
02-09-2007, 06:44
My feet look like subway pattys - And I should know as Ive been serving them till four in the moring.

Ill be brief hopefully...


i'v played quite a few small point games due to time constraints, and as a friend of mine put it "he who moves from the cover first loses".

That my friend, is testicles of the highest order. In fact I take that back - its relative to the terrain your using, much like necromunda. The more terrain, the more interesting it gets and again, Im talking about combat squads - the ten man squad broken into two 5 man squads.

The load out and manuevring of these squads can become in effect a game of chess - do you dive out of cover or use the other squad to flank for example. Thats where I personally feel the strength of GW lies. A newbie can buy a tactical squad and learn the essence of the game - that every squad matters, and recklessness gets you a slap in the face and your rear handed to you on a plate...

As an example of this, at my local store a guard player was fighting a marine player. The marine player had a single tactical squad, and a pleathora of other units - such a variety did he have that he'd never learnt the basics, and the guard player promptly pummelled him into the ground. It began with his commanders lone charge across the centre of the battle field, followed by his terminators who also got wasted. My point is, diving in with what you describe as a decent game isnt the way to have a decent game - unlike warmachine where a 500pts force seems to be the way to go, warhammer takes a bit of time to learn.

And assaulting on foot is a great way to swing a battle - a tactical squad isnt a gun line; its a flexable unit for doing anything and everything. GW understand this also, which is why (I believe, IMHO) battle companies have 6 tactical, 2 assault, and 2 devestator rather then an even mix of everything with the remaining ten being the command squad.

The thing is, with army selection, it comes down to what you feels best for you. Yeh you dont like bionics, but you know some gits won a game because its commanders made the roll and slapped his opponent silly. Sure combi-weapons seem odd compared to say, lighting claws, but in some games that little sneaky shot can bust someone open or kill a shed load of low toughness troops who would have otherwise tied him up. My point being, theres nothing there that isnt useless - low level games let you experiment with the combo thats best for you.


with a bit of tweaking you'll manage to hit 1k points, something considered a small battle with limited chocice of units in 40K.

But thats again, not entirely accurate. A thousand points game, in 3rd, is still enough to put forty men on the table. The tornies only go to 1500 (official ones anyways). You dont need to start off with that kit to get a decent game - for the same investment as warmachine you get a decent 'battle' without making the plunge a lot of the apocolypse players like myself will soon take ('with a mad frenzy, AD lept at the chaos marines, and it was good :D'). At the end of the day, I never buy to a set points, I buy because I like collecting and because I enjoy what I do - I very rarely buy a unit because its required for gaming, and on the rare occasions when I did (Kroot) they often got used as cannon fodder (My Tau were unbeaten - my kroot went in a bits box...)


of course it isn't, army of any number of points will cost you about the same number of monies in most cases. and tourneys are the measuring gauge in such a respect that they provide a level playing field for players from different locations.

But there only the measuring guage of the people that can afford to go to them at the end of the day - and lets face it, if they can afford to travel, buy the ticket, etc then there really not going to be fussed what the army costs them

i never argued that. i just argue that at lower level MANY tactics and nuances of the game are simply lost, beacuse you lack the choices to implement them. a game with 2 SM squads and a hero won't see any sweeping flank-rolling, breakthroughs or suprise traps simply because you don't have any units to do so.in WM those 3 warjacks you get in the starter give you far more freedom of choice on the field than those 10 marines and a hero,as simple as that. think of it like that:


in 40K, a squad really represents a single gaming piece with multiple wounds and weapons.

Ill end it with this because Im tired and I want to watch something funny before I go to bed.
This highlights the difference between the older players and the younger players. The Vets from 2nd edition knew that every single marine mattered, because you usually only had a tactical squad or two plus your hero. They were kitted no differently to there modern counterparts in essence, but because these older gamers like myself, were forced to play with only a few models because of there highpoints, they did learn tactics that they could employ on the larger armies - they were simply an extension of what they were doing in the first place.
As I say to my friend frequently, the thing that gets me sad about warhammer these days is that no one looks at a marine in a three thousand point army and remembers the games he survived, or that hero he downed single handedly - hes just another marine, in another squad, and if the squad dies who cares because theres plenty more where they came from...

Im off to be bitter and think about the old days when men were real men... :)

Ive enjoyed discussing this with you fella, although I think we should save it for another time. I see what your saying, and Im glad you kinda see what Im saying too - but were going to have to agree to disagree.


EDIT - Regarding terrain - My club used several books scattered liberally to represent buildings because we didnt have the resources to make terrain. It was always fun, saved a lot of hassle, and was quite convinient given we were playing in a library

Pokpoko
02-09-2007, 10:47
but were going to have to agree to disagree.
and thank you too for the discussion;)

Omegakai
02-09-2007, 22:15
Oh god not another PP vs GW thread.
shhh *long embrace* it will all be over soon.

They are differnt.
Yes i have a preference for one over the others, but it dosent make me right.
They are both good for what they do.
GW games tend to be better at being a long term hobbies, then PP games.
I could go on for hours but i wont.
time to lock the thread imo.

Frodo34x
03-09-2007, 00:32
Ashc stated he would have no problem dropping 65 quid on what is essentially a box of cardboard. The reason is that he is confident he is getting his money's worth. I am willing to bet that he is absolutely pumped about the next Magic set to be released, probably much more than I am. He will probably spend said quid when that set comes out. With no fear about how he currently plays the game..
Going slightly off topic, there's no real point in buying booster boxes from the big sets when you can buy tournament boxes for the same price.

But yeah, i agree with this and with Ash's post.

Chaplain Mortez
04-09-2007, 05:23
Oh god not another PP vs GW thread.
shhh *long embrace* it will all be over soon.

They are differnt.
Yes i have a preference for one over the others, but it dosent make me right.
They are both good for what they do.
GW games tend to be better at being a long term hobbies, then PP games.
I could go on for hours but i wont.
time to lock the thread imo.

I think I kind of started this thread on the wrong footing. What I'm getting at are situations like this in the GW hobby: there used to be a lot of special rules and cool abilities in Warhammer and WH40k. There still are. But, because of the fact that GW has grown, it has attracted different people than it may have originally intended.

The Iron Warriors list was meant to be a lot of fun for those who like to use tanks. I use eight in my current Black Templar army. I like them because they are fun to paint and looks cool when I have them all lined up on the battlefield. My buddy who started the game with me years back chose Iron Warriors for this very reason--tanks are cool. Now, we seem like a fun, sporting bunch, don't we? We are playing to have fun. And that's what GW intended to do with the current codex. But I'm sure, somewhere in this world, someone saw the option to take that many powerful tanks in one army and said: I'm going to be the best and get me some tanks--I'll never lose. That was not the intention (to make an unbeatable company of armor) of the army list. It's just that the game has grown and has attracted a competitive group of people.

Now I'm not saying that the game is any less fun or trying to talk about money here (although it may seem like it), what I'm really trying to spit out is how GW's success has brought on different people.

Ever played a game within a small group of people? I have. I played Mage Knight with about four other players. It was a very small group of folks. Because of this, our ideas were very limited. We basically had tactics to beat each other. Compare this to GW. Everyone hears about what goes on at the Grand Tournaments, or knows about some of the "better" armies to play. Or even take a look at Magic. Every Magic player is connected to all others--each and every one of them is sharing ideas and finding out the best possible combinations in the game.

It really doesn't matter if it's by word of mouth or the internet or magazines or whatever, the fact is that the success of the game will influence the way people play. It also influences the designer.

So, I guess the real question is, where is GW now? I definitely say it's out of the basement. But I do not think it's to the point where all of its players and designers are in-tune with one another. There are still many pockets of gaming groups that have never even seen a tournament or perhaps never have seen GW product on a shelf. But there are those who still play solely in tournaments and visit a store on a regular basis. And there's some stuff in between.

I was hoping for a more philosophical discussion, don't know if it's happening though. I guess it was just the way I did my original post.

...or I'm just tired as usual and this thread needs to be closed.

Osbad
04-09-2007, 08:25
I get your drift Chaplain Mortez. A while back I started a thread about a similar issue - my contention was that it is probably impossible for a company, any company, to design a game that will satisfy all the various expectations we have of it, let alone continue to satisfy us as we continue to play it year upon year. At some point a successful game will grow beyond a feasible level.

I agree with your sentiments that to an extent GW is a victim of success.

Where they management dropped the ball was in not realising this a couple of years back when the rumbles started getting serious. There have always been rumbles from gamers about any game, it comes with the territory in wargaming, but with 40k the level of rumbling when 4th edition disappointed so badly was of a magnitutude that any competent management should have done something about instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that it was just normal background noise.

I dare say Warmachine will eventually run into this problem at some point, although at the minute things seem pretty comfortable for PP. The key issue for PP is whether they have a plan to sustain growth for when Warmachine (and Hordes) reaches its optimal level, rather than just pretneding the issue doesn't exist like GW did back in 2004.

For 40k, as a non-player looking in from the outside, I think the idea of "streamlining" and improving the balance of the "core" game (at the expense of losing rules for all the lovely fluffy units people have grown to adore) is the RIGHT decision. Once the codices are balanced it makes for a game I am more interested in (I've always loved the fluff) than the horrible melange it had become which seemed to satisfy no-one unless you had fairly low expectations from the game beyond just a chance to roll some dice and engage in a bit of friendly banter as you discussed rules ambiguities. Adding Cityfight, Apocalypse "non-competitive" optional elements can only be a good thing. Optional options in style of game are always good as we all enjoy different styles of games.

Chaplain Mortez
05-09-2007, 02:25
I agree with your sentiments that to an extent GW is a victim of success.

I dare say Warmachine will eventually run into this problem at some point, although at the minute things seem pretty comfortable for PP.

For 40k, as a non-player looking in from the outside, I think the idea of "streamlining" and improving the balance of the "core" game (at the expense of losing rules for all the lovely fluffy units people have grown to adore) is the RIGHT decision. Once the codices are balanced it makes for a game I am more interested in (I've always loved the fluff) than the horrible melange it had become which seemed to satisfy no-one unless you had fairly low expectations from the game beyond just a chance to roll some dice and engage in a bit of friendly banter as you discussed rules ambiguities. Adding Cityfight, Apocalypse "non-competitive" optional elements can only be a good thing. Optional options in style of game are always good as we all enjoy different styles of games.

That's what I was looking for. I just had trouble spitting it out in a way that made sense--GW is the victim of success. Couldn't agree more, really.

And yes, I do think you are right that PP will run into trouble sooner or later. However, if they do bury their heads in the sand, they won't just be "in trouble" like GW is, they will disappear completely like all the other wargames, RPG's and CCG's and any other game has over the year--they still aren't big enough. On the other hand, they may be at the front of the industry. Only time will tell...

...if they too become the victim of success.

As far as rules go, I really hope players do realize that making things more streamlined is a good thing. Although YOU personally may be a truly good player, and play in the spirit of the game (as in having a well-themed army, good sportsmanship, and show your skills to play the game and not exploit the codex/army book), the fact is that success has brought in some different people. To be honest, blame the unsporting, rules-lawyering, exploiters of the book for the loss of your fluffy rules, not GW. It only takes a few to ruin the fun for everyone. GW just has to do their job and make sure things stay fun.

But success of GW and its products is what brought these people in.