GW on why customers buy Miniatures

[Bigred]

via Father Gabe (faeit)


At the recent HSC in North America (collaborating info I had from my UK source) is that GW feels (whether rightly or not...Im thinking not) that the whole reason we purchase miniatures is not because of what they can do in a game (rules wise) but we do so because of how they look. That surprised some of us. Combined that with the same reason the Codex/Army book comes out later, that might indicate a disconnect between corporate and its customer base. We have decided to dig on this issue, conduct surveys across the US GW/Independent stores to get an actual consensus. What we will do with that info? No idea yet. The concern is, does GW really feel that way, is it accurate or is it more of a "training" issue towards managers and such.

If it is a training issue, its designed to ensure that employees sell the models based more on the aesthetics then the benefits to the customer. Which is not good in training, where it was concerned that you do both, especially explaining how "Awesome miniature (X) can do all this stuff and it makes a great center piece..." for example.

Father Gabe

[Peter Mcbride]

Ive been playing warhammer fantasy/40k for 25 years now, and i can honestly say that all my army purchases are based on what the figures look like. i dont mind if i lose games because 'in game' they are not very good, as long as i have a good time playing it. i have also been known not to put in a good unit because i dont like the figure. i find the painting side of the hobby more enjoyable than the playing, and this might explain my personal decisions. if others feel the same way GW might well be right

[tyrela]

From my sources I have heard this to indeed be the case that they consider themselves to be a model company first and that we as customers treat them like Pokemon (Gotta catch em all). The rules are just secondary and they have little concern about balance, fair play etc.

[Wolfshade]

Of course, I would rather see model first rules second. Rather than rules first, models, well there are some that we are still awaiting for.

Thinking corporately, by developing the model first and realsing it before rules it means that you can do several interesting things.
Firstly, you can realse things as and when you feel like, giving you quicker/faster smaller releases. So instead of new codex with a big model dump, you get drips of new models then the new rules.

Secondly, it is a more conservative approach, rather than releasing art work for the model and rules for it then taking time to realse the models. This creates a window of opportunity for other model firms to come to market first with a model with your name, which basically blocks you from releasing it.

[Templar46_2]

i agree whole heartedly! i do not give one iota of crap about the rules of the model, or what it does. i buy and field units based on how they look, and if they fit the theme of my army.

[lordunborn]

Ive been playing warhammer fantasy/40k for 25 years now, and i can honestly say that all my army purchases are based on what the figures look like. i dont mind if i lose games because 'in game' they are not very good, as long as i have a good time playing it. i have also been known not to put in a good unit because i dont like the figure. i find the painting side of the hobby more enjoyable than the playing, and this might explain my personal decisions. if others feel the same way GW might well be right

I agree 100% here


From my sources I have heard this to indeed be the case that they consider themselves to be a model company first and that we as customers treat them like Pokemon (Gotta catch em all). The rules are just secondary and they have little concern about balance, fair play etc.

This is true. What was Citadel? They made Minis is I am not mistaken. They are a mini company that makes rules. They are in the business of selling minis. The fact that they want 100% control over everything is why they also make rules. They can direct people to buy specific miniatures with the rules as needed. Need to push more Big models put out a supplement that allows anyone to field them. The rules are secondary.

[DavidTQ]

They appear to have my number... Been collecting the miniatures since the late 80's. Ive painted more terminators than Ive played games... Stompy looking comes WAY before gaming ubarity for me.

I should probably also mention that although they "get" my motivation for buying, they have completely over estimated my level of motivation to buy. Modern prices I look at the figure and say "its not pretty enough to cost that".

[Gilbert Gordon]

Personally speaking...it's a good combination of the rules and how the miniatures look, and I've been playing 40K since 1987! Revell/Monogram, that's a model company...GW is a gaming company...Games Workshop not Model Workshop!

[Artifixprime]

Why is this a bad thing?
This is nothing that they have not said time and again - they are a models company. The rules are written to fit the models, not the other way round.
There is no deception here and I think it's a little unfair to demonize their business practice as every company is trying to "catch them all". Especially one that is publicly listed.
The issues of balance and fair play have always been present but have only come to the fore in recent years as tournaments have become more popular.
These *are* valid concerns for pure tournament play - no argument there. But they have also always said that theirs are not tournament games.
I do understand the frustration about balance, but if players are choosing to play it in ways that it's not designed for, then it's hardly GWs fault.
To use a simple analogy, I have a car that is fun to drive but that it not designed for racing. I can choose to race it, but it will likely be beaten by faster cars. If this does happen, I don't think I can really complain to the manufacturer that the car is not fast enough.

[Martin Lymer]

I have 3000pts of Astral Claws, that started with me buying Lugft Huron because I liked the mini. Most minis I buy I buy because of the way they look. Seen plenty of surveys like this on various forums and the majority buy based on looks.

[Reede]

See, I don't think this line of thinking is technically wrong, only inherently. I believe players that ALREADY are involved in 40k, have an army and enjoy will absolutely buy models based off of aesthetics. However, if you are looking to get into 40k or have become very disenfranchised with how the game is currently playing, then you aren't going to buy any models. Here's how I see it and I think (but can't confirm most certainly) a lot of players see it. If you don't have a good game to back up the pretty models, people aren't going to buy them.

[hutting7]

To be fair I'd say it was 50/50 for me, I mean I tend not to be too bothered by how the models look unless they're exceptional. So I'll start an army based upon one or two good looking models or the overall aesthetic, then I'll work out how to play that army and which units I'll need. If the models for those units are a bit dodgy or (mostly the case) overpriced then I'll use other models for them or ebay second hand versions of the models.
The only models where I've been "wow those are amazing, I'll pay the in-store price for them" in the last few years have been the Hellstriders of Slaanesh (who are sadly awful in the game but led to me making a Slaanesh army with older chaos models) and Tetto Eko for the Lizardmen (who was Finecast and resulted in hours of frustrated raging at the terrible build quality and swearing only to ever buy plastic haha).

[Bork]

i will absolutely not buy a miniature i do not like regardless of how good its rules are. i'll always seek to convert or scratch build if i really want to use that model.

on the flip side i absolutely will never buy a model i won't use in a game despite how amazing it looks. my budget does not extend to shelf candy miniatures i don't get any use out of.

it has to be a mix of aesthetics and good rules. one or the other doesn't get you the sale for me.

[Stone Edwards]

Yeah I have to agree with the others. I play the game just to have fun and as such I tend to buy models based on how they look. Granted I do break the trend sometimes, like when I bought warp spiders and jet bikes for my eldar, but it is the exception. I love how he acts all offended and surprised about all this. Seriously the people who only care about the rules and about competitive play are the minority, they just tend to scream the loudest so it is all you hear on the internet.

[Ghostofman]

I prefer cool looking models to ugly ones, but if it can't perform in my army, it's not getting bought.

I will say that my current feelings have a lot more to do with cost then they did in years past. If a box of centurions were about half what it is now, I might buy them for coolness, but at these prices, no way.

I think this is kinda the issue for me, just another example of how GW is trying to live in the past. For what it's worth, I get the feeling GW doesn't have the people and resources needed to adapt their business to the world of 2014, but that doesn't change that it needs to be done.

[Stone Edwards]

See, I don't think this line of thinking is technically wrong, only inherently. I believe players that ALREADY are involved in 40k, have an army and enjoy will absolutely buy models based off of aesthetics. However, if you are looking to get into 40k or have become very disenfranchised with how the game is currently playing, then you aren't going to buy any models. Here's how I see it and I think (but can't confirm most certainly) a lot of players see it. If you don't have a good game to back up the pretty models, people aren't going to buy them.

You may be right about someone who is disenfranchised (and honestly so many people who end up this way are so unreasonable there is no point trying to get them back) but I think you are completely wrong about new players. Buying cool looking **** is exactly how people get into the game. Do you honestly think that a newbie who has never played will really care that (to just take a random recent example) hive guard are now BS 3 instead of 4? Speaking from experience they will have no idea what those numbers mean, the only thing that would put them off is if some other jaded person at the store (or online) tells them.

[Johnnycache]

Ive been playing warhammer fantasy/40k for 25 years now, and i can honestly say that all my army purchases are based on what the figures look like. i dont mind if i lose games because 'in game' they are not very good, as long as i have a good time playing it. i have also been known not to put in a good unit because i dont like the figure. i find the painting side of the hobby more enjoyable than the playing, and this might explain my personal decisions. if others feel the same way GW might well be right

I've been playing long enough that I no longer chase the "flavor of the month" because there will probably be new rules for a fig eventually anyway, or something else in an army they can be used for...my current batch of Harbingers of the Void are all ex-paraiahs, for example. Rules come and go, your finished models stay in the world. Unless you sell them to a dipstick who simple greens them and repaints them with gloss testor's paint, then you just cry inside

[Wildeybeast]

I look at it like this. Is someone going to buy an awesome model with terrible rules? Well, yes. People like to paint them and many people will persevere with playing them simply for the models. Will people buy an absolutely awful model when it has good rules? I'd say that is less likely. I don't know anyone who would be willing to field, say, dark elf harpies.

However, I think we are getting to hung up the polar opposites here. They deliberately make awesome models, that is their prime goal. But they don't deliberately set out to write bad rules. Sure, sometimes they are unbalanced, over/under powered/costed or just badly worded, but those are the exceptions rather than the rules. Can anyone actually name a unit which has an awesome model but utterly terrible rules? Or terrible models but awesome rules? I can think of any.

All this is is GW saying what they have always said, they are first and foremost a miniatures company and that should be their driving goal. People are always going to moan about the rules but I hear very few people moaning about models these days.

[Kibbles Lil-Bit]

I tend to buy based on the look of the model. In my personal opinion, I would never buy Centurions because, to me, they are awful.
Then sometimes, along comes a model/unit that just makes you go Wow! This first happened to me when the Ushabti were released. In my mind no other figure came close to capturing the essence of an army.
I generally paint first, game second, having no friends who are into the hobby, so the models need to be good enough for me to buy.

[Lord Tothe]

Cool-looking models were the reason I even considered 40K in the first place. If I don't like a model, I'll see whether I can kitbash something more to my liking, or get a 3rd party proxy. I plan to try an Ork Deff Dred by digging out my Legos and building one that way, because why not? GW prices are outrageous, as many have said, and I can't drop $40+ on a single model whether I need it for my army, or I want to paint it just because. There are a lot of GW vehicles I would want to buy, build, and paint as they are, and maybe use them as looted wagons without any Orky mods, but I can't possibly afford to.

[EpicDan]

I got into 40K back in the RT days after being introduced to Space Hulk. The models then weren't especially detailed. Many were downright ugly, but they were different from almost everything else out there and they had great back stories to the different races and factions that made them appealing. It was the game itself that created the interaction between the models that hooked me and has kept me engaged since.

GW used to be a game company that had great looking game pieces. Besides WH40K and WHFB there was Space Hulk, Warhammer Epic, Space Crusade, Dungeon Quest, Tyranid Attack, Ultramarine, Talisman, Adeptus Titanicus, Blood Bowl, and others I can't remember off the top of my head. Now, almost all of these are gone and the ones remaining are no longer made directly by GW Except for the model based games. Somewhere along the line it seems GW wen't from a gaming company to a corporation that cut out all but its highest profit margin products, and the rules have become just a marketing tool for selling models.

I know there are people who buy, build and paint GW models just for the sake of their aesthetic and may never play any games with them, and there are people who build armies and play them based on their looks or fluff over game advantage. There are then those who buy models based solely on how they perform on the tabletop. All of this is awesome, but would any of us buy, build, and paint 180 Ork boys if there wasn't a game where they could be used? GW may want to think of itself as just a model company. They certainly have a lot of fantastic looking miniatures and may be the most successful miniatures company ever, but it is their games that have created the phenomenon we see today. What other model company has a library of books written about its miniatures or video games and movies based upon them? The models that GW makes are incredible. I enjoy every one in each of my 40K armies (currently 6), but the glue that binds them all together is the game. The numbers on the balance sheets may show that GW makes the vast majority of its profit from models, but to label itself as a model company is to do a great disservice to itself, its roots and its fans (customers).

[N++]

Assuming this view is true, it's most likely more corporate stancing to sway their own employees belief.

This isn't a question of "Do you include fluffy models in your list?" A few? Sure... but an entire fluffy list? Eventually, that player will be buying more miniatures. If GW sells models based on appearance, yes it attracts players... but it has another effect... eventually, those players will purchase more competitive models. If they had a competitive list right off the bat, they'd be less likely to buy more miniatures.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'm all about what the damn things look like. Whether something is good in the game is definitely secondary.

[Dave Bone]

I think the gist isn't that it's somehow a terrible practice, but rather we shouldn't bother with GW rules anymore since they obviously don't.

[DavidTQ]

I think I was buying and painting miniatures, for 12 years before I owned a rule book or codex! I was quite content inventing my own games and rules to use with family and friends with GW's miniatures...

[SolidGopher]

Its all about the look. I picked my starting army based on look, I based how I painted and organized my force based on look and personal fluff. I couldn't care less what the rules are, if I think a model is cool then I buy it and field it.

[DarkLink]

Why is this a bad thing?
This is nothing that they have not said time and again - they are a models company. The rules are written to fit the models, not the other way round.

Take a step back and think about this from a business perspective.

You produce models and rules for people to buy. Within the hobby, you have a wide variety of customers. Some people are competitive tournament players, some are casual, some only collect the models. It would make sense to market to all of these people, because they're all willing to give you money. GW, however, only pushes for the model collectors, and ignores everyone else. They produce rules, but they're of mediocre quailty, and many players don't get armies/units if the rules are poor.

It's irrelevant that some people buy only for the miniatures. GW's got that locked, you're already giving them money. What GW doesn't do, for some reason, is try and reach out to the customers that are on the fence. Tournament players buy some GW stuff, but they avoid a lot of it. There's a large portion of the market that can be reached, if they wanted to, but they don't. From a business perspective, intentionally ignoring a large portion of your market is baffling. There are a bunch of people willing to give you money if you just tweak your product a little bit (and their rules are a product), so why not​ take their money? It makes no sense not to.

[Wolfshade]

You got me thinking DL, something I had not considered before now.

GW objective is to sell miniatures is it not? That is their principle revenue stream, yes the books, (computer) games, paints, hobby products are spin offs but are not the key.

So let us consider the different sorts of players (Yes, this is simplistic stereotypes and many of us fall into more than one category).

The collector - they buy the models for the sake of the models, to some greater or lesser extent the rules are irrelevant to this group.
The casual gamer - there is a balance between the rules and the models, good models will be sold but the rules are less important, though still a factor
The competitive gamer - the rules are of paramount, the models themselves are almost irrelevant, a proxy or tiddlywink could be used in instead of a miniature

So, what does any of this rambling mean?
Well if GW produces very good/balanced rules then the competitive gamer is pleased and will buy the model, the casual gamer receives some boon to picking it also, the collector is still uncaring.
If GW produces very good looking models then the collector is pleased and will buy the model, the causal gamer receives some boon to picking it also, the competitive gamer is still uncaring.

Given that GW prides itself in creating the best models in the world and tries to stay a step ahead of its competitors in quality. This is what they are trying to do.

So, for GW to maximise it's audience i.e. push the casual and competitive gamer into buying a model then it all comes down to rules.

[daboarder]

You got me thinking DL, something I had not considered before now.

GW objective is to sell miniatures is it not? That is their principle revenue stream, yes the books, (computer) games, paints, hobby products are spin offs but are not the key.

So let us consider the different sorts of players (Yes, this is simplistic stereotypes and many of us fall into more than one category).

The collector - they buy the models for the sake of the models, to some greater or lesser extent the rules are irrelevant to this group.
The casual gamer - there is a balance between the rules and the models, good models will be sold but the rules are less important, though still a factor
The competitive gamer - the rules are of paramount, the models themselves are almost irrelevant, a proxy or tiddlywink could be used in instead of a miniature

So, what does any of this rambling mean?
Well if GW produces very good/balanced rules then the competitive gamer is pleased and will buy the model, the casual gamer receives some boon to picking it also, the collector is still uncaring.
If GW produces very good looking models then the collector is pleased and will buy the model, the causal gamer receives some boon to picking it also, the competitive gamer is still uncaring.

Given that GW prides itself in creating the best models in the world and tries to stay a step ahead of its competitors in quality. This is what they are trying to do.

So, for GW to maximise it's audience i.e. push the casual and competitive gamer into buying a model then it all comes down to rules.

That has been a driving argument of those who favour a more balanced rules set for ages. Though its very nicely laid out here so I will be unashamedly stealing this later

[Wolfshade]

That has been a driving argument of those who favour a more balanced rules set for ages. Though its very nicely laid out here so I will be unashamedly stealing this later

I had been mulling it over for about 7 hours and it was DL that crystallized my thinking on it.

Though of course you will never get consensus of what balanced is...

[DWest]

With the caveat that anecdotes =/= data, I'd like to share a personal experience on the matter. I quit 40k from 2002-2008. During that time, I shifted my hobby time and money into pen-and-paper RPGs, and I ran a sci-fi RPG for several years featuring characters who were Marines in Space, wearing armor that was powered, and while buying figures and scenery to spruce up my games, I never touched GW product-- it was too expensive, relative to my other options, and was too heavily "branded" to be put to good use elsewhere.

The new Knights are the perfect example of how things would go, from my perspective: I plan on getting one as soon as I have the money in hand, and if/when they bring out a Chaos version, I'll get one of those as well, but only because it's an excellent model *that also* has a useful game function. Take away that game function, and I'm not going to spend the price premium that separates a GW kit from another company's offering of similar size and and detail.

I could be in the minority, I could be in the majority, I could be unique. I don't know. But I do not believe that world background and the model range would outlive the death of 40k the game system by any length of time.

[tcraigen]

I have 15000 pts of blood angels, I can break down my buying patterns into 3 categories. 1. Look 2. Need 3. Deal. The primary reason I buy is looks. That covers the over abundance of characters, and specialized units. Almost all of the rest of the ridiculous sized collection has been deals. Whether it was the company box I got on sale to the majority of my tanks, I have acquired most through sales from 3rd parties or as used items and refurbished them. Any of the brand new full priced models I have, I have received as payment for work. The last time I bought for NEED was when force organization charts were introduced or because I "needed" 2 more guys to field a proper squad, because once upon a time everything was blister packs.

I with out a doubt believe more people buy on looks then reason. I have scouts with landspeeder transport because of this.

[Dar'kir]

I think this statement is a half truth. While most folks buy the minis for their appearance, having a good rule set is a rather large part of it as well. Lets be honest, no wants to collect an army that looks like crud... But if the rules are crud, no one will buy more then a few. I think that GW needs to try and find that a happy medium, but thats just my opinion.

[Blackcloud6]

I'll bet that GW understands its market better than our collective minds. I think they are spot on that model looks drives sales more than what they do in the rules, it is simple marketing: "Oh, that is cool, I gotta have it!" The Imperial Knights is a great example of this. We were seeing "leaked" pictures of them before anyone knew how they would play; no will really know how they play a until they start playing with them. Yet look at all the threads of post with people saying they will buy one, two or many.

[Denzark]

I think Blackcloud has a point about GW understanding its market. I just think its market doesn't understand GW - because they don't understand why GW don't bend over and service the every whim of every internet commentator.

The point at which they make a major change to business model will indicate that they think they need to do something different.

At the moment they don't.

[DarkLink]

While I appreciate that there are a lot of armchair MBAs out there, companies aren't perfect. There's a lot of stuff GW does that probably makes perfect sense if you get to look at the numbers. Intentionally choosing to avoid a large portion of their market because ideologically GW doesn't consider itself a rules company is probably not one of those cases, though. Just compare to PP. GW built its game on quality models in spite of mediocre rules, while PP built its game on quality rules in spite of mediocre models. So why does the idea of a company with both quality models and quality rules garner so much hate from GW apologists?

[Denzark]

I don't think the idea of a company with both quality models and quality rules does garner so much hate at all. Rather, I think that the 'GW apologists' take gross offence to the idea that the rules they enjoy are not quality. The argument that the ruleset needs tightening is for them an irrelevance because they are obeying the MOST IMPORTANT RULE.

Further, I just don't think the evidence is there that a 'large' proportion that is ignored. I think GW apologists and those who yak on about the tightness of rules are both minorities at opposite ends of the spectrum, and very vocal in this sort of forum. GW corporate suits don't think pandering to the games rules need tightening way of thought is relevant or necessary, in terms of the risk and outlay balanced against bottom line results.

[DarkLink]

Considering the growing size of the tournament scene, it's certainly not an insignificant portion. Point is, quality rules is good for all players, casual or not, and they can bring more business to GW if they're executed well.

[Denzark]

But DL you pretty much prove the point there. If the tournament scene is growing without expending the effort to tighten the rules, why would they? The books are out already based on a perceived shoddiness - and yet you say the tourney scene is growing.

[Artifixprime]

@DarkLink / WolfShade:

I think your point about GW ignoring part of their customer base is valid - honestly, I do.

If I was GW though the problem that I would see with providing the competitive players with a very tight set of rules would not be the cost and effort of doing so - although that could be considerable given the number of armies/units they have to balance.
It would be the effect on the hobby as a whole.
Take a brief tour of the internet (not the most representative I admit, but is the easiest source of information for the average player) and you'll see that the majority of the discussion / coverage concerns competitive army builds or rules questions that spring from this. A much smaller proportion of of the traffic concerns painting or modeling.
If they supplied tournament rules tomorrow then the internet would be happy. But wind the clock forward (say) 5 years and what will happen? I would wager that this is what they are thinking.

I got a chance to ask some questions to the GW events manager recently (Warhammer World) and it was quite interesting as to why GW "got out of tournaments" - it was the effect it had on younger, less experienced players. Not all of them, but enough, came away from tournaments with negative experiences of being tabled by an army better then their random collection of models. This is a fair tournament result, but a poor business result for GW as it harms customers.

So, given that, it could actually make more business sense to let the tournament scene do it's own thing.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I don't always agree with Denzark, but when I do, it's because he's right about this. You can't have it both ways.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

In five years working in GW retail I had four broad types of customer who weren't new starters;
Type one:
"The Often" Liked toys, bought toys, played with toys. Moaned a bit, praised a bit. Maybe went to the odd tourney but mostly played with the same 5-40 people every time. These guys were the majority of vets night, most of the semi-regular crowd and fit the full span of age and gender.
On balance most of these guys bought what they liked the look of.
Type two:
The "Hobbyist" Came, bought, went. Some just bought the paints, some bought toys, they NEVER came in to play. Most of them didn't play at all.
Every store I worked in had a few, and they bought based entirely on aesthetics.
Type Three:
"The Regular" The guy sat at a painting table, on a weekday lunchtime, in his suit/mc donalds uniform/whatever. The guy who was there every weekend. The rabid GW apologist fanboy. They guy who bought one of everything (I was once this guy, as I aged i gravitated slowly to being a type one). The guy for whom games workshop could do no wrong. Every store has a couple, they're nice enough in a worryingly intense kind of way. These guys went to tournaments, but mostly because GW were running them, not because they were going to win.
Type Four:
"That guy"
The guy who talked a lot about his projects, but never spent any money.
The guy who went to a lot of tournaments, but less as time went on because he was politely asked not to return.
The guy who thought destroying small kids with a tuned GT army on a Saturday afternoon was cool.
He definitely cared about rules first, because he was happy playing with an army comprised entirely of proxies.
Every shop has one or two.
The guy you ended up feeling vaguely sorry for, but just couldn't grow to like no matter how hard you tried.
every store has at least one, some have a couple more, but he exists.

Truth be told my experience of dealing with GW customers, the one's GW has face to face dealings with, was that they bought based on looks first. Most of the guys who were big tourney heads either didn't come into the store much, or didn't buy anything when they did. Because they bought it from the internet, or the wholesaler the next town over (who had a little shop attached and was a great bloke, even if his shop had odd as hell hours and closed whenever he felt like it). Most of the FLGS attempts flopped because the guys who started them weren't cut out for it, or because the majority of people could still get it cheaper from the internet or Graham (The wholesaler).
So from GW's insular perspective of course people buy based on looks, after all if they did customer surveys etc that's what they'd see.
If the tournament scene wants to be taken seriously as a GW customer base it needs to buy from them direct and participate vocally in-store.
That's what the non-tournament scene does.
FYI I do play competitively on occasion (not since summer 2013 Double though), but I too am a looks over rules guy.

[daboarder]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that looks aren't important, They are a HUGE drive. But the rules are important enough, (particularly with the increasing gap between armies) that they are often also a tipping factor.

[DarkLink]

If the tournament scene wants to be taken seriously as a GW customer base it needs to buy from them direct and participate vocally in-store.
That's what the non-tournament scene does.


You've clearly never been to the West Coast (USA).

[jonsgot]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that looks aren't important, They are a HUGE drive. But the rules are important enough, (particularly with the increasing gap between armies) that they are often also a tipping factor.

Here here, people don't buy ugly models, they don't buy rubbish ones either. I'd love a pyovour I think it looks great, but there is no way I'm buying one because the rules suck.

All the people I know who quit, quit because the army they had spent 100 or 1000s on got stuffed with a new codex or doesn't play well.

Rules wise I'd like centurions but they are ugly and I won't waste my paint on them.

Models need to look good and play well. This is just greedy management BS.