The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Elbows]

Got the BOC box.

I'll try to put together a blog post later, but initial thoughts: boring rules (at a glance), great plastics for the price.  GW is still really good at producing plastic sprue figures.  It's a lot of content for the money.

However, since I haven't owned real GW products for a while, and haven't owned space marines for well over 15 years, my initial excitement was tempered pretty quick.  I won't be cutting into sprues till I put some serious thought into what I'd use them for.   

For die-hard GWs or Marine fans it's an excellent box.  Lots of bits (heaps of magazine pouches, grenades, holsters) one of the sprue types includes a "build your combi-weapon" which is pretty nice.  A single bolter w/ option for flamer/melta/bolter?  The dreadnought is a little light on detail and the head is boring.  The terminator arms are a bit sparse.  They went with a ton of lightning claws which are boring (and silly looking in this version).

For kicks I had ordered a couple boxes of Dreamforge Eisenken Valkirs...the heavy Terminator-esque fellas.  Curious to see how the sprues/bits match up.  Might be a fun super-bash project.  I'll give it a week or two before I decide if I'll keep it or sell it off.  I like the Horuse Heresy aspect so this may just get stuffed in a corner for a few months or years. 

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Elbows:

You're a crazy man:

- You buy a box of mk4 marines
- You want to convert them to mk6, but don't want to spend much money or do any sculpting
- You don't really like the dreadnought either
- You also don't like the claws for the terminators (essentially, half their weapon loadout on the sprues)
- You don't know if you want the marines in the first place anymore

No offence, but this has all the makings of a project that will never get done!  

[Dim_Reaper]

You think you can design these games? APPLY NOW!"

Much of this smacks as too little, too late. GW had a time when they could address this. But since they haven't bothered to address the glaringly awful writing on their part, letting, say, Mat Ward exist in that company for considerably longer than any of GW's writers who had talent. In the last 10 years they've garnered a reputation for having awful, awful writing. No self respecting writer is going to work for GW. It's career suicide.

More importantly, these are just board games. It's not as if there's any sign that GW have embraced the idea of improvement. If you take these minor, minor "considerations" and put them in the context of a company that has rebranded itself exclusively as a miniatures company, has said only 20% of its fanbase actually bother with its games, has erased WHFB in favour of a barely functioning game that doesn't know what its supposed to be, and has made 40k the biggest load of pay to win bullshit in wargaming history, these small gestures aren't enough to suggest they're listening. At the end of the day, it's a bit of sales stimulus to keep the Shareholders happy, whilst the actual business fails.

I really, really doubt this is a sign of any kind of lasting improvement. It's more of the same of what GW ultimately are: a company that specialises in selling stuff that looks better than it actually is.

[rebelyell2006]

You think you can design these games? APPLY NOW!"

A shame they aren't looking for corporate historians or archivists.

[Vermis]

Nord: cruel.

But it's hard to disagree. I've been having vaguely similar thoughts to Dim Reaper. I've heard from GW fans that the GW studio apparently plays by grabbing whatever minis they have and bashing them together, apparently assumes everyone else plays like that, and anyone who plays different is doing it wrong. I think that's a bit difficult to resolve with the fact that until recently, both core games had strict force organisations and points systems, a lot of players got their kicks out of exploiting that, and - as DR says - there seemed to be a bit of pay-to-win going on. (Unless they do believe their own line about selling minis to collectors, and the rules being unimportant)
If it's the case, AoS and 40K unbound could be interpreted as GW springing it's own personal play style on the gaming public, and assuming everyone will go along with it. Keep playing in the same way, even. But then you could say they tried that before with a couple of side games: Dreadfleet and, even earlier, Inquisitor. One with no balancing structure, intended for purely narrative, almost RPG games, and the other apparently intended for dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling, and smashing minis together. Both with their adherents but not what you would call widely popular.

So if GW already had the notion that these games were unpopular (recalling unsold sets of Dreadfleet and destroying them would be a decent indication that they did) then what was the thinking behind turning their two main, biggest lines into the same kind of games? Given their apparent focus on minis over games, did they assume that the lack of success was all down to the incompatible 54mm and ship minis? (Elbows says the Calth rules look a bit boring at first glance, but I'll bet most gamers aren't buying all those 28-32mm heresy marines for the board game. A bit similar to how a lot of Space Hulk termis ended up.)

Getting back to the game designer opening, have AoS' unpopularity and GW's overall slipping sales really brought home the necessity of well-written and balanced rules, this time? I guess time will tell, when the first games of the Specialist Studio appear. But while LotR and the SGs had their little wrinkles that could be ironed out, by all accounts they included some of the best game rules put out by GW. I'd say you could put LotR and these proposed SG box sets up for sale with unchanged rules (edit: and halfway sane prices, natch) and people would snap them up, and love them.

So what's the extra game designer for? To iron out those wrinkles, to tweak the rules in whatever way the box set format requires (unlikely, as that's how they were sold before), or something more? Something to bring the games more in line with GW's collector-of-jewel-like-wonder-items/roll-dice-and-bash-minis mentality?

I get a bad feeling that hiring a new game designer 'for attitude', to adapt the old rulesets by Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers etc., will turn out as much of a nasty surprise as the time I tried reading the Malus Darkblade novel 'written' by Dan Abnett (top billing), and, oh, there's this Mike Lee co-writer chap too...

That's not too cynical, is it?

[Dim_Reaper]

But it's hard to disagree. I've been having vaguely similar thoughts to Dim Reaper. I've heard from GW fans that the GW studio apparently plays by grabbing whatever minis they have and bashing them together, apparently assumes everyone else plays like that, and anyone who plays different is doing it wrong. I think that's a bit difficult to resolve with the fact that until recently, both core games had strict force organisations and points systems, a lot of players got their kicks out of exploiting that, and - as DR says - there seemed to be a bit of pay-to-win going on. (Unless they do believe their own line about selling minis to collectors, and the rules being unimportant)

If that was the case, I think actually a lot of us long suffering GW "fans" would be rather tolerant that at least, they have a consistent attitude that sets their game up as something. This kind of consistency has done wonders for the likes of PP, who unapologetically label their games as games for Nasty Power Gamers. The trouble with GW is, they'll say whatever they feel they need to say to get through the day, and at the same time use ruthless and blatant endeavours that aren't about playing games in so much as they are about manipulating the shit out of gamers to encourage sales stimulus.

40k for instance, and Age of Sigmar, have formations. These things are the bane of my existence, and they're a primary contributor in my determination to quit. They basically give massive (and often game-breaking) bonuses to players who buy and use specific units. It often requires (I'm sure you'll all find this surprising) purchasing multiples of recent releases, or previously underused models from the existing range. It's a novel way to make sales, but they've basically become the totality of playing. I used to count on some variety when playing the game, but these days it's getting to the point where you're seeing the same stuff over, and over, and over.

I do have a soft spot for Age of Sigmar, but it does set off my cynic alarm. The rules are so obviously designed and set up to in the future facilitate effortless pay-to-win ante-upping shenanigans. As most of the rules and features of the ruleset are in the rules for the unit you buy (the core has very, very little to offset the massive and easy to arrange inequalities within the game), meaning that it doesn't take very much effort to make newer releases simply better than everything that went before it, and what's more, there's not enough core rules to sanitise or standardise how rules are used to maintain a stable playing field. Anything from the way a shield works, to a kind of in-game effect that would previously be a Universal Special Rule that was contained within the core, has no presence in the main rules, and there is nothing stopping them from making what is effectively the same effect better for some things and not others.

I just don't remotely buy this whole "the game doesn't matter" thing, because if it didn't, so much time and effort wouldn't be put in to facilitating what will sell and when. The game doesn't matter in terms of being a game, that is evident. But in terms of sales, it's still everything. This ante-upping has made the games so utterly un-fun for me, that I barely even bother. The hobby aspect gives me a fair bit of enjoyment, as their kits are rather good, but in terms of games, these people are past it.

It's not surprising they call themselves a miniatures company. They suck at everything else. This new revelation of adding new staff does not really fill me with confidence. I assume, much as I think Vermis does, that they will go for a writer who's primary selling point in the interviews was their "enthusiasm for the company" over their abilities.

[Vermis]

(I'm sure you'll all find this surprising)

I know you're being sarcastic; but after finding out that even the new terrain pieces have their own special rules, and are necessary for some of the new scenarios, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Agreed with the rest of your post. That's the flipside of the 'naive, well-meaning GW' bit, and another example of the mixed messages sent out by GW. (Or different departments within GW, or even GW fans trying to rationalise what GW are doing) I would say that underlies all GW's apparent problems, from subjective pricing to rules imbalance to game structure. It's all trying to pull in different directions at once.

[Cherno]

All this talk about GW's business practices since, well, GW first started , makes me wish we could experience a parallel dimension where GW actually had no share holders and just did what it's fans liked and suggested... I wonder if it would still be around today, as the colossus that it still is. Every week, someone proclaims the nearby end of GW because of their supposedly bad business practices.
It seems to me that sometimes, people forget that a company's primary goal and reason of existing is to be profitable and make money, which doesn't necessarily mean pleasing people who think they are the customer's base. I heard before that GW relies more on young gamers who got suckered into the "GW hobby" than the old-time gamers who already have a lot of GW stuff and only buy the occasional blister or rulebook.
What if most people don't like how GW runs it's business, but they are still doing the right thing from a business perspective (that includes the long-term)?

[Lovejoy]

I heard before that GW relies more on young gamers who got suckered into the "GW hobby" than the old-time gamers who already have a lot of GW stuff and only buy the occasional blister or rulebook.

You're right, he target audience for the last 20 years has been 12 to 15 year olds; they tend to drop the hobby after they hit school leaving age, and a small percentage come back around the 19/20 age, along with a tiny but very keen minority who never left. That was the line coming from the sales director, and to be fair, it was born out by the customer base we were getting in the stores.

What if most people don't like how GW runs it's business, but they are still doing the right thing from a business perspective (that includes the long-term)?

Thing is, servicing the 12 to 15 year old market requires friendly, open stores with lots of painting/gaming support, and rules teaching, stuff like that. There used to be lots of that going on.
But now GW are trying to save money, they've cut the store staffing levels to the bone, and there just isn't the time to provide the support the kids need.
But rather than admit that cutting the store support was a mistake, and reclaiming the 12-15 group that took them to where they are, they now insist that their target customers are more mature 'collectors', prepared to pay vast sums for a single fancy model. So, no, I don't think they are doing the right thing from a business perspective, long-term.

[Modhail]

What if most people don't like how GW runs it's business, but they are still doing the right thing from a business perspective (that includes the long-term)?

I don't know a lot about business, but generating a steady flow of (disgruntled) ex-customers doesn't seem to be in any manual... 
Most companies these days are becoming more and more service-oriented for sales generation and retention, whereas GW seems to be growing more disservice-oriented.

[Rhoderic]

All this talk about GW's business practices since, well, GW first started , makes me wish we could experience a parallel dimension where GW actually had no share holders and just did what it's fans liked and suggested... I wonder if it would still be around today, as the colossus that it still is. Every week, someone proclaims the nearby end of GW because of their supposedly bad business practices.
It seems to me that sometimes, people forget that a company's primary goal and reason of existing is to be profitable and make money, which doesn't necessarily mean pleasing people who think they are the customer's base. I heard before that GW relies more on young gamers who got suckered into the "GW hobby" than the old-time gamers who already have a lot of GW stuff and only buy the occasional blister or rulebook.
What if most people don't like how GW runs it's business, but they are still doing the right thing from a business perspective (that includes the long-term)?

I always hear this argument come up sooner or later in any critical discussion about GW, and I never really understand the point of it. Of course GW gets to do whatever it feels is best for making money - and to GW's merit, it's not as if it's exploiting impoverished cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast or poisoning pineapple farmers in Costa Rica like some other companies whose products we buy in our daily lives away from the hobby. None of which alters the fact that it's not our job to ensure the financial well-being of GW's shareholders.

If we feel that a company is treating its customers (or potential customers, or target demographic) in a cynical manner, or if we don't like the deal that a company is offering us, we get to be vocally critical of it - for our own sake, not for the company's sake. They can do what they like, we can do what we like.

There's no such thing as being unfair to GW when we're talking about whether we would, or wouldn't, invest ourselves in what they're selling.

[Major_Gilbear]

GW's business practices always confuse me, all I see is a constant stream of missed opportunities:

The funny thing is, GW are in a strange and enviable market position that in any other market sector would have seen them absolutely wipe the floor with most of their competition; and yet, they cannot seem to increase their profitability due to their inability to listen to or understand their customers' concerns, and gradually lose market share year on year. It's really baffling that they can't see that, but we've discussed it before and so I'll leave that comment there.

I have also never understood in these discussions why many people seem think that only GW or their customers can benefit from a change in GW policy, and not realise that both can. Like I said: in any other market sector... 

[Modhail]

I have also never understood in these discussions why many people seem think that only GW or their customers can benefit from a change in GW policy, and not realise that both can. Like I said: in any other market sector... 

I think it's because GW suffers the same blind spot in that regard, and we just subconsciously copy that attitude? 

[Ray Rivers]

they now insist that their target customers are more mature 'collectors'

Not being really a GW fan, but having bought into AoS, I would agree with that statement.

When you look at the AoS miniatures, they are 40mm not 28mm as sooo many folks fail to comprehend. They are chock full of detail. For example, I just finished 3 Retributors. The "backpacks" they have measure from the uppermost spike to the lowest point on the scrolls hanging from them, more or less, 28mm. I painted them separately and when they were finished glued them onto the miniatures. Just these 3 backpacks took me over 8 hours to paint.

After painting my 3 Retributors I came to the decision that there was absolutely no way someone the age of 12 to 15 could paint these minis.

Now in business you have basically two predominate models that optimize profit: low price, high volume or high price, low volume. So, for example, you have someone like CoolMiniOrNot producing Zombicide, which is a low price, high volume business model. Their minis are detailed but made of crappy plastic. OTOH, you have folks like Infinity who go for high price, low volume with detailed minis made of resin.

When you look at the new stuff coming out of GW, which is made in very high detail and hard impact plastic, they have only one business model which is viable: high price, low volume.

You may not like the strategy, but it is a proven business strategy which reaps profit.

Now in case folks haven't been following current events, young folks really don't have much buying power and the earnings of the middle class is collapsing. When faced with this situation, GW could have tried to stay somewhere in the middle of the two major profit strategies as they have for the last 30 years. But that road, given today's market realities is the road to extinction. The company obviously had to change direction, that is that they had to choose a market strategy that optimizes profit. Can you imagine GW shifting to a low price, high volume market model? No, I can't either and thus we have the direction that GW has now taken.

Like I said before, you may not like it, but it is a proven business model for maximizing profit.

[Redmao]

I don't get why people say that GW is aiming for the 12 - 15 years old.
While I don't regularly visit gaming stores, I never saw any kids hanging there.
Most of the customers or gamers were people ranging from their mid 20's to their 40's.

The only kid I saw was a little boy who was playing army men with some Dust Tactics models on a display table while his dad was browsing around.