The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Vermis]

Most of the colours are pretty useless as they are too colourful, almost comic book in tone etc.

What were scorpion green and bad moon yellow, then? 

Here's something that this topic was built for: seen this Beasts of War Announcement?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/games-workshop/announcement/

[OSHIROmodels]

I usually don't bother reading things like this because at the end of the day, I play with toy soldiers and life is too short to get imbroiled in this sort of thing but I would suggest that BoW fuck GW and report on everything else hobby related (obviously not the GW 'hobby').

There are many, many small companies, traders etc that would benefit from exposure from compaines such as BoW and not having any GW coverage will help that to happen.

Enough legal rubbish, I've got toys to play with 

cheers

James

[Cubs]

I would suggest that BoW fuck GW and report on everything else hobby related (obviously not the GW 'hobby').

Ah ... an elegant and succinct turn of phrase. Oscar Wilde would have struggled to wrap up my feelings in a better way.

If GW want to abuse the law by being able to afford better lawyers than anyone else, and want to bind people to nonsensically controlling contracts, then keep away from them like they're a slimy pile of worm-ridden faeces.

There are many, many small companies, traders etc that would benefit from exposure from compaines such as BoW and not having any GW coverage will help that to happen.

Once more you have delicately prized open that nutshell and placed the truth lovingly inside. GW's releases are all over the net in a blink anyway, all BoW do is scoop people by a few hours. Get going to help raise the profile of some more deserving companies struggling to promote their wonderful sculpts.

Enough legal rubbish, I've got toys to play with 

[OSHIROmodels]

Ah ... an elegant and succinct turn of phrase.

I never was of a literary nature 

cheers

James

[Too Bo Coo]

As far as GW and myself are concerned. I have a Night Goblin army boxed up for the future, which I probably wont use for a GW game, and I bought that aftermarket.  Even the paints I buy from them are fewer and fewer every year as I become more comfortable with other lines, particularly Vallejo.  So I treat GW like I did with unsavory political institutions, I voted with my feet and wallet.

[thebinmann]

That's it I'm done with GW, finished no more products from them.

All I'm up for now is 1980s citadel on ebay!

[Gibby]

In the last three months I have come very close to getting back into Warhammer, and more recently, Warhammer 40k. The pricing of the new Dark Elf stuff alienated me from getting back into Warhammer, because I felt like I was being mocked by being asked for £35 for 10 plastic figures. I had just about reconciled myself to the fact that, hey, you buy it it's yours forever and you'll get hours of fun out of it... but was looking more towards doing some 40k stuff this time as I love the fluff and was in a bit of a sci-fi mood. Then I saw this whole BoW thing, and I can't honestly condone GW's current form by buying any of their stuff. They're like a dying beast lashing out in its death throes, with falling sales and utterly ridiculous price gouging to cover them, and plain cynical business practices... I don't know. Time to redirect all my hobby money to other companies exclusively.

[Modhail]

Dear Gods, do I ever feel a knee-jerk reaction coming on! 
They (GW) are certainly doing their level best to alienatie as much support as they can... I wonder what they'll do once they achieve their apparent goal of becoming a company with only shareholders and without customers, without (independent) retailers, without anyone talking about them. 
Or maybe they're just trying to kill off the wargames branch because it has worse ROI than their publishing house and whoring out their IP to make sup-par shovelware games?

Phew, managed to contain my knee to just a little twitch there...


This whole BoW thing has made it clear to me however: Looking at the way they are policing sites that potentially discus GW, they clearly see themselves as Fight Club.
Oh, well, mr. Bibbly has it right, time to return to my toys.

[weismonsters]

I have not heard of Beasts of War before but I have heard various tales of GW doing this kind of thing. Regarding price rises and so on, I have acceptable bounds of price/quality ratio and if i feel something falls outside it i wont buy, without need to make any public outcry. However, when it comes to this type of thing with the cease and desist letters it is healthy to have some kind of public discussion in my opinion.

Now I have no idea about the rights and wrongs of this particular case, but in that press release I found the following statement which resonates with me:

"... it seems completely alien to us ... not be able to report on the most dominant game and company in the industry."

Another notable thing is that they keep saying that they respect GW and want to keep covering them etc. Now it seems to me this is quite a swashbuckling line to take, despite the meek and mild language used to announce it. They are basically inviting GW to show themselves up as the aggressors.

It seems from all this business that GW is in a position to say to themselves that not all publicity is good publicity. Now, i know there is a certain element of luck in successful business, but presumably they didnt get where they are by shooting themselves in the foot. If they seem more focussed on controlling information than on giving gamers the best possible gaming experience it is because they have calculated it is in their best interests to do so. Likewise with concentrating on a younger market. Likewise with targeting new customers and neglecting older ones. Likewise with distancing themselves from stockists. And if they beleive that they dont need publicity from elsewhere it is because they judge that they have a monopoly and that their hedgemony is so strong that when it comes to publicity they have more to loose than to gain and that it is best policy to focus only on shepherding their customers. And if they judge that, there is at least a good chance that it really is so, because they are where they are by getting this kind of thing right, not by getting it wrong. If that is the case, then we may deduce that every time someone mentions GW in anything like the same breath as one of their competitors, GW is harmed by the publicity. Not all publicity is good publicity when you have achieved a certain level of dominance. This is clearly a big problem for the industry and suggests to me that the "ignore them and they will go away" line from people llike us here on this site will not succeed in making them go away. Of course we are quite within our rights to ignore them. They just wont go away.

[grant]

GW would make a good paper on how not to conduct yourself in the marketplace. Too big to fail? 

[weismonsters]

They may well fail at some point in the future. Most companies are not successful. There are a lot of unpredictable factors involved. So if a company is big, we might expect it to fail just on the basis of regression to the mean. This is something that Daniel Kahneman writes about in his book that i have on my shelf. He also argues that the perceived relationship between innovation or visionary leadership and business success is largely a bias generated by hindsight. And that initial business success is largely down to luck.

If that is the case then I guess the most effective way to stave off regression to the mean is to use power to try to change the rules or control the environment in order to preserve the status quo, rather than to continue to innovate.

[FramFramson]

the most effective way to stave off regression to the mean is to use power to try to change the rules or control the environment in order to preserve the status quo, rather than to continue to innovate.

This is broadly true and usually happens once the company moves beyond its first-generation leadership. But sometimes not even that long.

The few exceptions tend to be companies where the founders really pushed a culture of accountability and/or innovation. Even that doesn't necessarily last forever.

[Cubs]

And if they judge that, there is at least a good chance that it really is so, because they are where they are by getting this kind of thing right, not by getting it wrong.

I broadly agree with your assessment, but for me this part is the whole nub of the gist, as it were. Did GW get where they were by making the sort of decisions they now make? Or did they get where they are on the back of the innovation and inspiration of a generation of designers they have now got rid of?

It seems to me that when GW started to act like paranoid dictators, that's when their numbers started to dip and people starting to get a bad taste in their mouth. GW have been a big company for a long time now, but they didn't start to generate the sort of bad press they now get until the last few years.

GW will almost certainly survive and still be here in ten years, but only because they will see that a change in policy is needed. They may even be bought out and see the boardroom replaced, who knows.

[zemjw]

Just read this blog post that suggests there are signs of some changes at GW.

The main one is that their head lawyer has departed/been fired. No idea whether that's good or bad news. Direct link to that story

[Cubs]

I hope this heralds the biggest change of attitude and policy since Darth Vader lobbed his employer down the pipe in 'Return of the Jedi'.