PDA

View Full Version : A Petition to Games Workshop



Gothmog
10-22-2014, 09:42 PM
The videos in the the MUST SEE: GW CORPORATE STRATEGY EXPOSED (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/10/must-see-gw-corporate-strategy-exposed.html) post on BoLS got me thinking about all the open letters over the years. But I feel now is a better time then ever to reach out and try and reason with GW as their customers, before it is all too late.

I did up a petition outlining a few core concerns the gaming community has with their business practices and how they should reflect upon them selves and how their strategy is not meeting customer desires or expectations.

You can go to it via my blog here (http://sepulchreofheroes.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-petition-to-games-workshop-limited.html)

Or directly to it here (https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-limited-refocus-your-business-model-on-the-sale-of-a-game-and-support-of-a-gaming-community-vice-the-pure-sale-of-collectible-miniatures)

Or read it here before going:
Refocus your business model on the sale of a game and support of a gaming community vice the pure sale of collectible miniatures.

As competition from outside organizations grow and GW revenues and profits fall, your company seemingly continues to pursue a business model not in alignment with your customer base's desires and expectations.

Your business model states "We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever". Realize that you produce a game, and that the models are playing pieces in that game, not the end product themselves. Without the game, there is no need to purchase Games Workshop models. They are not collectible in the same sense as scale military tanks and aircraft, nor are they as utilitarian as historical wargames miniatures, applicable to multiple game systems and supported by real world events. GW models are only useable in the context of GW games, the primary of these being Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

I and many others collect your models to play the game. Only a fraction of the community do so purely for the experience of owning, building and painting Citadel miniatures. This is why when armies are timely updated and released, model sales for those armies jump. It is not because of marketing through White Dwarf and Online Stores. It is because people want to play with the newest "Toy". Collectors continue with these factions to keep playing the game, not just own miniatures.

Your fanbase and the dedicated gaming and hobby community ask that you adopt the following policies

1- Support gamers, conventions, and tournaments, primarily through well-developed rules and encouraging competitive play. Despite GW's desire for Warhammer to be a "Beer and Pretzels" game that is simply a reason to buy and collect GW miniatures, gamers want a system that can be used for competitive play as well. Just because this is supported does not mean that fun, narrative driven relaxed play is not possible. Appeal to both sides of the gaming community, not just the one you want to more. You cannot interface directly with the small group playing a campaign in their basement. You can with the 100+ players at a tournament. Doing so will improve your corporate image, impassion your playerbase and ultimately encourage the playing or your game which directly correlates to the sale of your miniatures. This means releasing fairly balanced, well play tested rule sets, and timely FAQs which address the issues players are encountering. The relaxed narrative players will appreciate these clearer and improved rules just as much as the cut-throat tournament gamer.

2- Reduce the number of "Direct exclusive models" and support the FLGS. Game Stores are where your community exists. It is not in their home, alone, painting. Most of the hobby may occur there, but it with the objective in mind that on the weekend they will travel down to their local friendly game store and set up across the table from someone and play a game. That is why they put all the hours into building and painting their army. Sure it may be fun to build and paint it, but it is a means to an end, not the end itself. Since the objective of collecting is to play a game, game store owners are going to promote games they can sell in their store. If majority of your product is exclusively available from your webstore, game store owners will not push your product as they lose potential sales. Without that push or those sales, their gaming community abandons GW games, and without the game they abandon GW/Citadel models.

3- Competitively price your products. You have some room to charge a slight premium because of the quality of your miniatures. But since the ultimate objective is to play a game at the end of the week, players are going to financially invest in what they can better afford. All wargaming is a luxury market. If a player can get the same amount of game time for less with another game and have just as much, if not more fun, then that is where I will invest my dollars. This is a big factor as to why so much competition now exists whereas very little did before. A potential aide to this point would be to allow sales of bits, aftermarket 3rd party add-ons, and discount online retailers. This all encourages throughput of your products, and for players to gather larger or more forces for their games. Sales for GW have only become worse with the policies that eliminate these possibilities.

4- Change your website to be hobby and gaming driven with a webstore option attached for support. This used to be the way it was. Your website should not just be an online marketplace. Your site should be the one stop shop for painting, tactics, gaming communities, upcoming tournaments, etc. etc. The webstore should then be a feature that a player can access after reading a tactica article or a painting guide. It is in game performance that drive sales of models the most, so discussing the performance and ways to use particularly models in game can only benefit you by swaying consumers to purchase it. Beautiful photos and well painted models help, but a vast majority of your playerbase knows is cannot paint as well as your webstore and White Dwarf images, so they fail to be lured in by that trap.

In short, rededicate your company to supporting the selling of a game. This is your main product. Your models are the key playing pieces of this game, and will make you the most money. Without the game though, they are worth nothing.

Gothmog
10-22-2014, 10:21 PM
Thanks to the mod who put this where it should be. Didn't realize this subforum existed.

Gothmog
10-23-2014, 03:00 PM
I added a fifth bullet


5- Conduct market research and increase player involvement. With the advent of social media this is easier than ever. Rather than just having youtube videos for new releases, have discussions of in progress design concepts to allow hype to be generated and discussion to occur, then systematically feed this back into your development process. Release trial rules again and gather important commentary from the players to fine tune them. Furthermore understand your consumer base and what they need and want to continue collecting, converting, painting Citadel miniatures and playing GW games rather than just assuming another huge kit or wacky limited edition gaming aide is what they need to be fed. With a generation thriving off constant connectivity and insight into early product development in virtually every market, particularly the growing tech and video games industries which manage to steal potential hobbyists daily, a policy of secrecy and blind assumption only will accomplish an alienation of the consumer.

Gothmog
10-24-2014, 06:16 PM
We are up to 2500 Signatures!!!! Please sign and share if you believe in the above!

Denzark
10-24-2014, 06:30 PM
'encouraging competitive play' ha.

Gothmog
10-24-2014, 08:35 PM
'encouraging competitive play' ha.

Something that had to be included. Why should the company decide how we can and cannot play. They say they don't for that very reason, but in doing so pull the rug out from competitive playing (something I don't even do actually. I have never been in a tournament) but why not try and support competitive and relaxed play?

jonsgot
10-25-2014, 04:06 AM
I've signed although I don't expect this will go anywhere. The rules team do want a balanced system, there are just too many units and rules in the game.
The best way for GW to retake market is to stop solely releasing £30+ units and Stock most of their range in store. There will always be counter fit models and some people will still buy them, but the current prices are nuts and too prehibative to younger players.

Wildeybeast
10-27-2014, 06:17 AM
im not saying the aims of this petition are wrong, but it will achieve absolutely nothing. Petitions influence governments and NGOs (sometimes). Businesses care about money, not customer opinion. So long as people keep buying the plastic crack, GW will keep doing what they want.

The only way to really get the change you want is to get people to stop buying their stuff. If you can't do that, then it simply means that most people are happy with the way GW run their business (or at least willing to tolerate it for the shiny models) and that you aren't actually in touch with the wishes of the wider community.

Path Walker
10-27-2014, 06:20 AM
Something that had to be included. Why should the company decide how we can and cannot play. They say they don't for that very reason, but in doing so pull the rug out from competitive playing (something I don't even do actually. I have never been in a tournament) but why not try and support competitive and relaxed play?

Because they don't feel its in their best interests to encourage that sort of aberrant behavior.

If you want to run a competitive tournament, run one, change the rules as you see fit, thats allowed. They don't want a tournament scene because they don't think its good for their business. Thats their choice, its their game.

Mr Mystery
10-27-2014, 06:49 AM
Something that had to be included. Why should the company decide how we can and cannot play. They say they don't for that very reason, but in doing so pull the rug out from competitive playing (something I don't even do actually. I have never been in a tournament) but why not try and support competitive and relaxed play?

Because that's for the community to provide.

GW have always been more about the models than the rules.

Comparing it to a game designed from the ground up for inexplicably hardcore tournament play is a bit like claiming a Ford Focus (or other family car) is somehow flawed, because you want a racing car. Both have different design ethos.

Eldar_Atog
10-27-2014, 09:16 AM
Because they don't feel its in their best interests to encourage that sort of aberrant behavior.

If you want to run a competitive tournament, run one, change the rules as you see fit, thats allowed. They don't want a tournament scene because they don't think its good for their business. Thats their choice, its their game.

So what is the difference is grown men playing with plastic toys in a casual environment versus grown men playing with plastic toys in a competitive environment? How is one aberrant and the other not? If your definition is aberrant behavior is competitive 40K players, then you might be a little naive on the ways of the world. There are much odder and stranger things lurking out there.

I'm not into playing tournaments but there is nothing inherently wrong with competition. We are surrounded by it. Professional sports, the heavy focus on competitive games in the education system, the general race to "get ahead" in our careers.

Heck, GW still pushes competition when it's convenient for them. The Golden Demon painting competition would be a good example. And back in the day, it was GW that created the 40K and fantasy tournament scenes.

Mr Mystery
10-27-2014, 09:36 AM
I think he meant aberrant as in 'not representative of the majority', rather than 'creepy little weirdos'.

Leastwise I hope he did?

Path Walker
10-27-2014, 09:59 AM
I think he meant aberrant as in 'not representative of the majority', rather than 'creepy little weirdos'.

Leastwise I hope he did?

Yeah, as in, its not the way its supposed to be but it happens, they're gradually encouraging people away from it, they tried to make the competitive thing work with 3rd edition and it was a bit of a failure.

They've tried it the way the way this survey wants it and it just didn't work.

Eldar_Atog
10-27-2014, 10:22 AM
Yeah, as in, its not the way its supposed to be but it happens, they're gradually encouraging people away from it, they tried to make the competitive thing work with 3rd edition and it was a bit of a failure.

They've tried it the way the way this survey wants it and it just didn't work.

It is possible for competitive gaming to work because Privateer Press seems to be making a good go of it. My opinion is that GW wanted competitive play but didn't want to invest any effort into it. You can't just slap together a balanced game system.

I like the idea of this petition but it will just be ignored. GW does not care about it's customers.

Mr Mystery
10-27-2014, 10:29 AM
GW does not care about it's customers.

I'm always skeptical about such comments, and I don't mean to single you out in particular.

I see lots of comments online about how 'the community' want this, and 'the community' want that, when what people really mean is 'I'. Which don't get me wrong, 'I' is fine. But there just isn't that single, unified community voice clamouring for the same thing. For instance - all I mostly want are honking big models, and rules to use them with. That's my prime concern, and right now I am extremely well catered for by GW. I know I'm not alone in that, but I wouldn't say that view is necessarily a majority.

Path Walker
10-27-2014, 10:32 AM
It is possible for competitive gaming to work because Privateer Press seems to be making a good go of it. My opinion is that GW wanted competitive play but didn't want to invest any effort into it. You can't just slap together a balanced game system.

I like the idea of this petition but it will just be ignored. GW does not care about it's customers.

The idea that GW doesn't care about its customers is nonsensical. Of course they do.

They don't care for their customers telling them how to run their business based on their own personal opinions.

Privateer Press is a different business, they're not in the business of making beautiful models, obviously, and their game is structured around the idea of competitive competition which GW do not want for their games.

Its not that they can't make it work, they just don't want to because they prefer to run as a model company that makes games.

Wildeybeast
10-27-2014, 10:52 AM
Whether or not GW care about the customers is completely irrelevant. They aren't an old peoples home or counselling service or a school. People don't pay GW money to care about them, that isn't the service they provide.

People assume that because they care about the service/product GW provides the mirror is that GW should care about them. Actually the correct reciprocation would be GW caring about the product it makes, which I think most of the company does. If customers cared about the financial success of GW and the individual welfare of its employees, then they would have right to moan about GW not caring about them.

Path Walker
10-27-2014, 10:59 AM
You've never had a cuddle with a black shirt in a hobby centre? Its a reasonable price, obviously you could get a cheaper hug but i think the quality is worth it.

Eldar_Atog
10-27-2014, 12:16 PM
I'm always skeptical about such comments, and I don't mean to single you out in particular.

I see lots of comments online about how 'the community' want this, and 'the community' want that, when what people really mean is 'I'. Which don't get me wrong, 'I' is fine. But there just isn't that single, unified community voice clamouring for the same thing. For instance - all I mostly want are honking big models, and rules to use them with. That's my prime concern, and right now I am extremely well catered for by GW. I know I'm not alone in that, but I wouldn't say that view is necessarily a majority.

No offense taken. Let me give my reasoning for why my "does not care about it's customers" statement.

1) Look how they have walled themselves off. No facebook pages, no forums, no outreach programs. These things can sometimes be more trouble than they are worth but they are a great way to see what your customers are excited about and where their pain points are.

2) The avoidance of almost all conventions. I can count on one hand how many times I have seen official GW representation at a gaming/geek convention. At GenCon, Wizards, AEG, Privateer Press, and most of the other big companies have great booths to get you excited about stopping by. You might not get a lot of facetime with one of the writers/artists but you did not feel like they were hiding from you.

3) Gamesday. When I went to this in Memphis, TN about 2 years ago, it just felt like a huge store. The only thing that did not seem to be store based was the Golden Demon stuff. Truth be told, the Battle Bunker used to have more going on than Gamesday. Painting courses and the like...

When a company is trying to avoid interacting with even it's excited customers, then how can I think that they care about the customer base?

Our needs aren't all that different, Mystery. I want really cool models, interesting fluff, and well balanced rules. I do not want to show up for a game and know I am going to beat my opponent before we are even setting up terrain. Fair play is an extremely important point for me. I do not want to trounce an opponent just because they did not win the codex lottery.

Sorry about my typing. I tend to sometimes leave out words as I am typing.

Mr Mystery
10-27-2014, 01:35 PM
Some counter points.

1) keyboard warriors. They reach out, and receive abuse. If it's a public forum type thing? That's not good for them. If the goon squad could just wind their necks in and look into constructive criticism, we might see a stronger dialogue.

2) FW do reach out. Warhammer Fest was fun, and apparently organised by FW primarily, and they attend various conventions. For GW, the cost may not work out. After all, you need to fly out big names to make it worth it. One could argue (and not saying it's necessarily a strong one!) that their own stores mean they can reach out in a more cost effective way, as anyone wandering in can be shown the whole gamut of the hobby (which to me is more customs service than others can offer themselves)

3) yeah GD went downhill - and I don't think it's just our increasing maturity. They keep a tight rein on leaks and previews, apparently/allegedly because they don't want to give third parties the time to produce knock off versions of new kits.

I think it's just one of those things. I know what good customer service means to me, but it's not a universally definable trait. Good example? I like staff to acknowledge me when I'm in store, and to engage me about what I'm up to. GW do this, so I'm happy. Others prefer to be left alone to browse in peace. And you know, that's all personal preference, and neither is more correct a method than the other. But GW have made their choice.

Sadly for some GW just isn't going to be the company they want.

Eldar_Atog
10-27-2014, 04:08 PM
Some counter points.

1) keyboard warriors. They reach out, and receive abuse. If it's a public forum type thing? That's not good for them. If the goon squad could just wind their necks in and look into constructive criticism, we might see a stronger dialogue.

I can't argue with this. The public forums are going to be a neutral environment even in the best of circumstances. It just draws a lot of negativity. It takes a thick skinned community organizer to make this work. I wonder sometimes if Bols is so negative because of bitter 40K players or just that a dystopian game draws people with pessimistic mindsets.


2) FW do reach out. Warhammer Fest was fun, and apparently organised by FW primarily, and they attend various conventions. For GW, the cost may not work out. After all, you need to fly out big names to make it worth it. One could argue (and not saying it's necessarily a strong one!) that their own stores mean they can reach out in a more cost effective way, as anyone wandering in can be shown the whole gamut of the hobby (which to me is more customs service than others can offer themselves)

I can't see the cost being the issue. Think about it.. If the smaller gaming companies can afford a high end booth at GenCon then there must be something going on besides a money issue. A GW booth with a couple of the Heavy Metal painters and a community organizers would get a lot of foot traffic. In 2014, Gencon attendance was about 60,000 people. And that's a drop in the bucket compared to ComicCon.

Most of the marketing people I know would be literally salivating over that much foot traffic for 4 days. Actually, does GW even have a marketing department?



3) yeah GD went downhill - and I don't think it's just our increasing maturity. They keep a tight rein on leaks and previews, apparently/allegedly because they don't want to give third parties the time to produce knock off versions of new kits.

I think it's just one of those things. I know what good customer service means to me, but it's not a universally definable trait. Good example? I like staff to acknowledge me when I'm in store, and to engage me about what I'm up to. GW do this, so I'm happy. Others prefer to be left alone to browse in peace. And you know, that's all personal preference, and neither is more correct a method than the other. But GW have made their choice.

Sadly for some GW just isn't going to be the company they want.

True.. That is the conclusion I came to after 7th edition. I can either keep being dissappointed or I can move on to something else. I'm not going to do a massive model dump on Ebay but I'll probably never go on another 40K buying binge.

Caitsidhe
10-28-2014, 05:50 AM
Games Workshop is simply out of touch. The good thing about this disucssion is we have a real life laboratory in which to watch things unfold. What is more, it isn't as if we have to prove the theory of evolution. Things are moving along at a rather good pace and I expect we will have satsifactory answers within a year or two at most. :D Games Workshop doesn't really care about its customers because Games Workshop, i.e. the people running it now, aren't players. They aren't even collectors. This is just a job to them. As other people have commented, folks who have personal contact with them and their comparny environment, they don't have anything to do with the game in their down time.

Why is that a problem? The best designers and spokespersons for a hobby are those who indulge. They do it for the love of the hobby/craft/game itself. Everybody loves a good paycheck. That isn't the same thing. It is a truth of life that you want someone who lives and breaths for something to be the person you hire. The best Fencers don't just train a certain number of hours and get on the strip when they compete. Fencing is both their job and their hobby. The best painters, authors, singers, etc. all say they would be doing what they love whether they were paid to do it or not. They do it even when they aren't on the clock. Games Workshop isn't there. They aren't us. They are just the unhappy kid at the Mall wearing a stupid hat at the food court slinging chow.

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 06:10 AM
If only that were true.

Ask any video game designer what the last possible thing they could be bothered to do after a day of animating dudes running around on a screen is, and it would likely be, "playing video games or staring at a screen for even more hours."

Hell, just ask your FLGS manager. Many of them don't play in their spare time because their entire job is trying to make models, paint them, and get people playing, and so they spend their free time doing anything other than that.

Saying that gamers would make far better games is like saying everyone who enjoys eating food is automatically a Michelin-star chef.

Caitsidhe
10-28-2014, 06:58 AM
If only that were true.

Ask any video game designer what the last possible thing they could be bothered to do after a day of animating dudes running around on a screen is, and it would likely be, "playing video games or staring at a screen for even more hours."

Hell, just ask your FLGS manager. Many of them don't play in their spare time because their entire job is trying to make models, paint them, and get people playing, and so they spend their free time doing anything other than that.

Saying that gamers would make far better games is like saying everyone who enjoys eating food is automatically a Michelin-star chef.

It is true. The best Chefs are foodies. The best game designers play video games. The best movie makers love cinema and going to the movies. People who love something can't wait to do it. That is why they get better at it than everyone else. Am I suggesting that everyone who works for Games Workshop needs to be a game fanatic? No, far from it. I'm suggesting that the people who design the game should be. The people who handle public relations and outreach should be. Having people create and market the product that have nothing in common with the people who actually use the product is idiotic.

Darren Richardson
10-28-2014, 07:05 AM
No, far from it. I'm suggesting that the people who design the game should be.

Ultimatly the person who runs the company should be a gaming fanatic, if he cares about the ngame, then he will steer the company correctly to ensure the game he loves playing, continues to thrive and prosper....

If people who ran companys all the time didn't enjoy what their companies produce, we wouldn't have Pixar, Dreamworks, Marvel etc.....

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 07:12 AM
It is true. The best Chefs are foodies. The best game designers play video games. The best movie makers love cinema and going to the movies. People who love something can't wait to do it. That is why they get better at it than everyone else. Am I suggesting that everyone who works for Games Workshop needs to be a game fanatic? No, far from it. I'm suggesting that the people who design the game should be. The people who handle public relations and outreach should be. Having people create and market the product that have nothing in common with the people who actually use the product is idiotic.

Not true. Stanley Kubrick, for example, made excellent movies via excruciatingly obsessive takes and retakes, and highly abusive measures towards his cast and crew to get the right work out of them.

While the best chefs love food, not all who love food are good chefs. While the best games designers play video games, not all do. We're raised on the view that the perfect job is to do your hobby for money, while reality is far from this more often than not.

More to the point, if you have someone who enjoys playing the game dictating how it goes, they will promote their game. Arguably this is precisely what is happening, but the problem is that the game they want to play is not the game you want to play, and thus you feel they're not even trying to make a "fun" game because it's so distant to what you want to play.

Caitsidhe
10-28-2014, 07:17 AM
Ultimatly the person who runs the company should be a gaming fanatic, if he cares about the ngame, then he will steer the company correctly to ensure the game he loves playing, continues to thrive and prosper....

If people who ran companys all the time didn't enjoy what their companies produce, we wouldn't have Pixar, Dreamworks, Marvel etc.....

Oh, I don't disagree with the sentiment that the company would be better answerable to the consumers if the CEO was a fanatic, however, I don't think that is a requirement. A good CEO (or whatever title a particularl company uses) is quite capable of managing a product which he/she doesn't use or care about. They have to be talented, however, and know how to delegate authority and jobs to those who are fanatics. In other words, they have to hire the right people for the right job. You hire the best to design the models. You hire the best to design the games. Right now they have awful management, a man who lives in a bubble and says crazy stuff. He is stepping aside but has given us a clear indication that he is still running things. :D

- - - Updated - - -


Not true. Stanley Kubrick, for example, made excellent movies via excruciatingly obsessive takes and retakes, and highly abusive measures towards his cast and crew to get the right work out of them.

Ummm... what part of what you just said doesn't prove my point? :D Stanely Kubrick is obsessive and does takes and retakes. The highly abusive measures towards his actors and crew have no bearing on his personal love of cinema and passion toward his art. The man was driven to create film after film and demanded final cut. He is exactly the kind of person I'm talking about. He makes great movies because making movies is what he does.


While the best chefs love food, not all who love food are good chefs. While the best games designers play video games, not all do. We're raised on the view that the perfect job is to do your hobby for money, while reality is far from this more often than not.

Not all do, but the best ALWAYS do.


More to the point, if you have someone who enjoys playing the game dictating how it goes, they will promote their game. Arguably this is precisely what is happening, but the problem is that the game they want to play is not the game you want to play, and thus you feel they're not even trying to make a "fun" game because it's so distant to what you want to play.

You have no clue what game I want to play. :D What I am talking about right now is business. We have a company culture that has evolved at Games Workshop wherein the people who work there are far removed from the people who actually purchase and use their product. That is simply a bad business model. It has nothing to do with the game I want to play or the game you want to play. It is just bad business.

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 07:31 AM
You have no clue what game I want to play. :D What I am talking about right now is business. We have a company culture that has evolved at Games Workshop wherein the people who work there are far removed from the people who actually purchase and use their product. That is simply a bad business model. It has nothing to do with the game I want to play or the game you want to play. It is just bad business.

Not the same game as many others, as many others want to play a different game to the others in the community. With that diversity in mind, and with the fact that any attempt to open up would result in nothing but a tidal wave of bile, why would GW want to spend the effort to do so? It's not exactly going to make them any more money.

Also not every chef is fat, and not everyone good at their job enjoys it. Conversely, not everyone who enjoys their job is good at it.

Caitsidhe
10-28-2014, 07:40 AM
Not the same game as many others, as many others want to play a different game to the others in the community. With that diversity in mind, and with the fact that any attempt to open up would result in nothing but a tidal wave of bile, why would GW want to spend the effort to do so? It's not exactly going to make them any more money.

Ok, let me break this down.

1. A balanced, well-designed game has no effect one way or the other on those who just collect and paint models. This means they shouldn't care.
2. A balanced, well-designed game has no effect on those playing narrative games either, because they just change the rules however they need.
3. A balanced well-designed game brings in more players who do care about this option.

In short, there is NO DOWNSIDE to building a product that includes another third of your potential gaming market. A well-designed game in no way affects the other two thirds of players. It doesn't take anything away from them. In fact, they only stand to benefit as they too get a better designed, balanced game. If it is something they don't use, they lost nothing. My point is that if you are a BUSINESS and it costs you NOTHING to design your product to have a broader appeal there is no reason not to do it. In fact, not doing it is costs you money. It is stupid.

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 08:04 AM
Arguably the game is becoming more balanced, the 2014 Codices, against each other, are more fair than any of the 2012/2013 Codices against each other, (Dark Angels/Chaos Marines vs Tau/Eldar, loooooooool!)

However, the prevalent complaints now are blandness due to the flavour being squeezed to flatten the plateau of game balance. Ultimately, it's highly difficult to write in quirky, characterful rules and make sure they can't be exploited. Hence why WMH's rules are fairly standardised and each faction is simply tougher, faster or shootier than the others, with anything even remotely unique like Eyeless Sight being constantly whined about. Each Caster basically has a once-a-game gimmick to combo off, but other than that aren't that special.

Path Walker
10-28-2014, 08:42 AM
I do love the idea that GW don't comminicate with the customers.

I want to speak to a GW representitive, I can do so, 10:00 to 18:00, 7 days a week, later on a friday, I can intereact with them on the Stores Facebook page.

Not many other companies in the industry hire staff to man shops to interact with the customers every day. They all rely of GW doing the introductions to the hobby, so they can get them later when they're bored of Warhammer.

GW are more approachable than any other company out there, a forum is all well and good, a facebook page, great, but staff in a shop that you can visit and talk to and buy from, thats priceless.


Show me a balanced, well designed game thats actually enjoyable to play and represents the fluff of the forces at the same scale of 40K and I'll eat my hat. Note, enjoyable to play rules out Warmachine, which I can only imagine people play because it ISN'T warhammer and they want to make a point about hating GW, I can't imagine any other reson to play that game.

Erik Setzer
10-28-2014, 09:20 AM
Note, enjoyable to play rules out Warmachine, which I can only imagine people play because it ISN'T warhammer and they want to make a point about hating GW, I can't imagine any other reson to play that game.

So basically, you're admitting that your own bias could make any attempt to point out an example moot. Warmachine sells well because people enjoy playing the game. You might not enjoy it, and that's fair enough, but I know plenty of people who enjoy it, and I've enjoyed the few games I've had (I'd play it more, but the closest basic game store is a bus ride down the road from me, whereas there's a GW store in walking distance of my apartment). The models are getting better, but that game didn't get going on the models alone, and they didn't fund a computer game through Kickstarter based on models that obviously don't exist in a computer game... they did it because people enjoy the game and wanted a computer version they could play with anyone (and seriously, the sales model they're using for it, that's something GW needs to look at for a potential 40K/WFB game, because it's bloody brilliant).

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 09:24 AM
I'm not a fan of WMH personally, but I don't think people are masochistically playing it. It's very precise and demands a lot more thought in what to combo and in what order, with list building as well as gameplay playing an important part, especially the part where someone exposes their Caster and loses the game pretty much automatically.

I personally dislike the mono-pose models, the small scale of battles, and the lack of non-humanoid models Everything's a varying size of dude, there's no tanks of any flavour aside from That One Khador Tank that everyone cites as though it's a replacement for all the Artillery, Russes and Hellhounds that keep me playing Guard.

The thing I found with WMH, is that when you walk past, you very rarely say how cool everything looks while in battle, because it just isn't that cinematic a game. Maybe it's my local meta, though, WMH is still a fledgling here.

Path Walker
10-28-2014, 09:27 AM
I've never seen anyone playing it that wasn't in the middle of a neckbeardy rant about how bad GW are.

Literally, i've seen it played by different people four times and every time at least one guy playing was complaining loudly about GW.

Erik Setzer
10-28-2014, 09:36 AM
Hell, just ask your FLGS manager. Many of them don't play in their spare time because their entire job is trying to make models, paint them, and get people playing, and so they spend their free time doing anything other than that.

Hmm. Let's examine the stores in Jacksonville that are still around and haven't shuttered up yet:

Happy Viking Games - Admittedly, not sure about these guys, haven't stopped in yet.

Cool Stuff Games - Chain store, so maybe not exactly a "FLGS," but still, the staff play games.

Borderlands Comics & Games - Owner plays historical miniatures games with a club that meets up in the store. He also used to manage a Xeno's store (actually, Borderlands used to be one of the Xeno's locations, though not the one this guy managed), and played games while he worked there. Xeno's was a group of stores run by a guy who also played games (and, IIRC, tried to publish some).

FLGS - Took over the location of Sun Coast Comics and even bought up their stock to get started when SCC shut down because of health issues with one of the owners. SCC was originally a comic store that also sold comic-related toys and stuff, they started getting in some GW stuff and other gaming stuff, and people liked it, and the owners got into the games pretty heavily and expanded their stock, then rented another room to be a game room, before moving a couple blocks to a new, bigger location, where FLGS took over (and FLGS just moved into an even bigger space in that same shopping center). FLGS is run by a pair of guys, one of whom ran War Dogs Game Center when it was at its best. He occasionally plays miniatures games but mostly is an RPG guy (the co-owner plays miniatures games, though): he runs RPGs, he even writes stuff for RPGs (lots of articles in Dragon and some books to boot).

Stepping back a bit in history for a classic shop that ran well for a while before the owner got too busy with life and sold his stock to War Dogs:

Sanctuary Games - The owner not only played games often (one of the reasons he hired help was so someone could run the store while he played games), he also started up a gaming club that's primarily GW games (Guardians of the Sanctuary), which still exists (albeit now just Guardians) and has had a lot of great events over the years. He ran the tournaments at his store, participated in things like Mordheim leagues, and was a very active gamer, which helped him understand what people wanted, and made the store very popular (so it was quite sad when it closed).

Bonus in the non-FLGS category:

Games Workshop: Deerwood Village - The GW store that opened literally right in my neighborhood (seriously, it's the shopping center I do my grocery shopping, and where I get the bus to work each day). The manager has been a gamer for a long time and gets in games whenever he can, which isn't easy because, well, he has to manage the store. But he's constantly working on models, will pull out his armies to play when he gets a chance, and has started up a Blood Bowl league that he converted a team for and is playing in. His being a gamer helps him understand the mentality of gamers and also builds up more goodwill with the customers and keeps them coming back for more.

So, yeah, from the successful game stores I've seen in this area (and I've seen a few come and go), I'd say that the successful owners *are* guys who do their best to get in games. (Obviously not "after hours" because the FLGS's are open until midnight or sometimes later on the weekends, and stores like GW and CGS are held to the hours dictated by the companies, and it's kind of silly to close up and then try to head across town to another store for an hour or two.)

Eldar_Atog
10-28-2014, 09:41 AM
I've never seen anyone playing it that wasn't in the middle of a neckbeardy rant about how bad GW are.

Literally, i've seen it played by different people four times and every time at least one guy playing was complaining loudly about GW.

Heh, I could say the same for most 40K games I've seen people play. If they are not complaining about GW's policies, they are complaining about the shoddy rules.

Games Workshop: Uniting wargamers in the brotherhood of hatred. One game at a time :)

Erik Setzer
10-28-2014, 09:47 AM
I'm not a fan of WMH personally, but I don't think people are masochistically playing it. It's very precise and demands a lot more thought in what to combo and in what order, with list building as well as gameplay playing an important part, especially the part where someone exposes their Caster and loses the game pretty much automatically.

I personally dislike the mono-pose models, the small scale of battles, and the lack of non-humanoid models Everything's a varying size of dude, there's no tanks of any flavour aside from That One Khador Tank that everyone cites as though it's a replacement for all the Artillery, Russes and Hellhounds that keep me playing Guard.

The thing I found with WMH, is that when you walk past, you very rarely say how cool everything looks while in battle, because it just isn't that cinematic a game. Maybe it's my local meta, though, WMH is still a fledgling here.


It's a small scale game and they're slowly moving to plastic, which allows more variety of posing and all. If you want to change up the models, you can. Not much different from how GW started out. As for non-humans, Hordes handles that part of things, and they're starting to branch out more with Warmachine.

I see "cinematic" battles with WMH as often as I do with 40K or WFB. It really depends on the players, and honestly, I don't see that much "cinematic" going on in GW games these days. I know one player who likes to do fun matches like that, he'll build themed lists, play scenarios even in WFB, and even asks me to bring my Stompa so he can try to kill it. Other people moan about the Stompa being an "instant win" for me (which is silly), they bring combinations of stuff that mock the fluff just to have a more powerful list, or do all kinds of silly stuff that's centered on just lining up and beating the other player, not having cinematic moments or narrative games.

With everything, of course, it really just depends on the players involved. If I had more time to play Warmachine, it'd certainly be "cinematic" and "narrative," because I like doing "daring" stuff in games, and I picked the Protectorate to play because I like getting into the mindset of religious fanatics who throw holy hand grenades (similar to how I enjoy getting into the mindset of party animals who treat war as just another party: Orks).

I can see the draw, and I've seen people able to be competitive without having to think too hard about their lists. Yeah, it's a game you can lose pretty easy if something goes wrong... but having heard about a game in which Nagash, a 1000 point model, got snuffed in one cast of a spell, thus swinging victory into defeat so agonizing it led to a surprisingly public apology from one player to the other, I don't think that's something GW games avoid, either. You get some really goofy scenarios in 40K, too, like how Murderface McMurderpants is a Character, and can thus challenge other characters, leading you to either let him slaughter the one model you have in a unit that can hurt him before you get a chance to swing, or you slowly see your unit whittled down by a model you can't hurt.

Good and bad to all the games. I personally like 40K, WFB, and WMH. But that's just me.

Mr Mystery
10-28-2014, 10:27 AM
See WMH leaves me cold. I don't enjoy the game play, I don't find the models particularly appealing, and the few times I have played, my opponents have been pretty obnoxious neckbeards, who rather than see 'possible long term opponent', simply saw 'total NooB ready to be smashed'.

Doesn't make it a bad game by any stretch, but try saying that online and people just assume you're some kind of mentalist.

It's the same with GW. Those who don't like it, don't like it - but for some reason some of them just can't leave it be. Instead they're oddly attached to bad mouthing the game based on shonky opinions poorly disguised as 'fact'. If you try and point out that the things that bug them don't bug you, then clearly you must be a mentally deficient fanboi.

I think sadly it's a nerd thing - we see it with computer gamers, CCG players, Trek Vs Wars etc (hell, that punch up between Trekkers and Whovians sticks in the mind).

And all that does is create a mighty big dustcloud, obscuring all other viewpoints (oooh, I'm very pleased with that analogy!).

Someone earlier mentioned BoLs as a negative website - I genuinely disagree. We have a decent mix of opinions, and for the most part our actual dustcloud is pretty small, as very few respond to differing viewpoints with ad hominem attacks, and other pointless diatribes. We discuss, and sometimes change a viewpoint one way or other, sometimes agree to disagree.

Wildeybeast
10-28-2014, 10:52 AM
Two quick points.

1) Warhammer is balanced, well designed and enjoyable game to play. Sure it has is few kinks, but what game doesn't?
2) BL organises an entire weekend where customers can direct face time and interaction with all its top authors. Not just book signings, but proper seminars and chances to chat with authors, including writing tips and the chance to pitch them your own story ideas. Name me another publishing company that does that.

There's more to GW than 40k folks.

CoffeeGrunt
10-28-2014, 10:55 AM
Yeah, I can't help but feel that Privateer Press vs GW is just this community's Mac vs PC, or 360 vs PS3. Both are assured that they've got the company that not only makes the better product, but is also righteous and caring towards their userbases, despite either side being equally motivated by the bottom dollar.

For what I personally want out of a game, WMH does not deliver, and I simply can't get excited or interested in it despite most of my friends thoroughly enjoying it. It just feels much more mundane, relies much less on abstraction and building the story yourself as everything is exactly as it is on the table, there's no model's eye view for LoS, merely a laser leveller to check if a line can be drawn. There's no clash of hundreds, armoured battalions rolling across the field, or battlesuits flitting around unleashing death before flitting away again.

This is all personal opinion, but I just find it so dull to both watch and to play. Again, not saying people who play it are dull, I personally don't enjoy LoL or WoW as computer games, but know people who've sunk months of their life into enjoying and playing them.

However, the problem comes when people seem to insist that GW turn 40K into a WMH-esque game. Why? The option already exists, why erode an option other people enjoy to try and force it into the round hole its square self can't fit.

GW did the tournament thing, they passed that period and for whatever reason, better or worse, have decided that they don't want to develop that kind of game. However, people point to the fact their profit has declined within a similar timeframe as though that's the only factor, as though there wasn't and still isn't an economic recession in Britain, as if the LotR bubble hadn't burst and lost them a lot of revenue, as if the Dawn of War rush of players hadn't abated since that series started to peter out and, sadly, ceased to be produced.

Hell, we don't even know if GW are the only ones slipping, or if the entire industry is on the verge of collapse because GW are the only ones who put out figures, and they would avoid it like all the rest were they not publicly trading and thus legally obligated to do so. Privateer Press could be flagging themselves, hence needing Kickstarter to fund things despite having a thriving game system. Fantasy Flight Games could be overextending themselves with the sheer number of games they produce vs the amount they actually sell, (and we don't know those figures either, the best we have is anecdote and speculation.)

When PP, FFG and all the other players in this game release figures to gauge GW's against, then I'll decide then, but numbers without reference are fairly meaningless. Imagine trying to document Climate Change without any data on anywhere in the world other than the temperature in one particular spot. Sure, it's a pretty big spot, probably the biggest of spots, but it's still only one spot and does not produce a clear picture of the overall situation.

Eldar_Atog
10-28-2014, 01:03 PM
1) Warhammer is balanced, well designed and enjoyable game to play. Sure it has is few kinks, but what game doesn't?


*raised eye brow* So 2 equally skilled players, one using sisters and one using eldar, have EQUAL odds of winning a game? Orks vs Tau?

Path Walker
10-28-2014, 01:24 PM
*raised eye brow* So 2 equally skilled players, one using sisters and one using eldar, have EQUAL odds of winning a game? Orks vs Tau?

Define "Balance". Do you mean any choices up to the points value has an equal chance of any other choices to the point value considering equal player skill? Thats either impossible or would leave you with an extremly boring game.

Player skill being equal then Chess isn't balanced, theoretically, according to some players at least.

Eldar_Atog
10-28-2014, 01:40 PM
Define "Balance". Do you mean any choices up to the points value has an equal chance of any other choices to the point value considering equal player skill? Thats either impossible or would leave you with an extremly boring game.

That is what I am asking Wildeybeast, Path walker. He said that Warhammer is a balanced game. I asked him if 2 players with the same skill level have equal/near equal odds of winning, regardless of army choice.

I am asking him to defend his statement.

Path Walker
10-28-2014, 01:46 PM
He feels its balanced, you're enforcing your terms of what you mean by balance on him.

I'm asking you what you mean by balance, you're saying that an army could be drawn at random and still have equal odds of winning against any other army?

So you'd want no unit synergy or tactical depth? The only way to achieve that would be to simplify all units to the point of mundanity, see early 40k 3rd Edition for an example of that, or to reduce the number of units available to an army drastically.

As the company makes money selling models, neither model is particularly useful.

Eldar_Atog
10-28-2014, 02:15 PM
He feels its balanced, you're enforcing your terms of what you mean by balance on him.

I'm asking you what you mean by balance, you're saying that an army could be drawn at random and still have equal odds of winning against any other army?

So you'd want no unit synergy or tactical depth? The only way to achieve that would be to simplify all units to the point of mundanity, see early 40k 3rd Edition for an example of that, or to reduce the number of units available to an army drastically.

As the company makes money selling models, neither model is particularly useful.

What does game balance mean to you then? For me, it comes down to this. A player should not have lost the game before they even get to the table.

One of the reasons I have lost interest in 40K is this lack of balance. I have tried putting artificial limits on my army and it's still too easy to win. Minimum of 4 troop choices. Can't take more than 1 heavy support choice unless you also have 1 elite and 1 fast choice. Only 1 vehicle per 1000 points.

I don't want a damn easy button when I show up for a game. I don't want people to dread playing me because I have the OP army. At present, my opponent's unit synergy and tactical depth are irrelvelant without the artifical limits on my army.

Mr Mystery
10-28-2014, 03:29 PM
When it comes to a disadvantage, I genuinely find attitude plays the biggest part.

Yes, I have had games where I see how my opponent has deployed, and feel 'oh what's the point' - Dwarf gunline boredom springs to mind.

But in 40k, the issues aren't that pronounced. I tend to see people trying to find some kind of mindlessly hard killer combo, one with absolutely no downside etc - and nothing like that exists. People tend to focus on what their opponents army can do really well, rather than how to dismantle it.

Competitive to me (quite possibly incorrectly - I am no authority on anything, except perhaps me, and even then my expertise are ropey at best!) seems to equate to 'lose as few models as possible whilst wiping out my opponent'. Nobody *seems* prepared to take risks. The mindset *appears* to be 'if I can't kill it on a 2+, it can't be killed'.

I don't like terms such as competitive, or optimal, because it's all so incredibly subjective, despite some claiming otherwise.

Denzark
10-28-2014, 06:58 PM
Sadly for some GW just isn't going to be the company they want.

I think this is key to the argument - and I think this is far harder to understand for our US cousins than it is in the UK. Because they do tertiary industries so much better than us - or at least make more of an obvious effort. As a result it is well-nigh inconceivable as to why GW doesn't behave in fashion x or y - because 'the customer is always right'. Because for the shareholders they ain't making a loss - in the middle of the greatest financial downturn. As such they have no risk appetite to say 'spend £30k on an 'Engagement manager' or 'pay someone to spend 4 hours a day on the GW facebook page - it is acceptable for 3.5hrs to be spent deleting rants.'

Because all that is somewhat irrelevant to their business model. Whereas those with a sense of entitlement used to a system where the customer is at the start, centre and end of the universe, don't get this.

Eldar_Atog
10-28-2014, 09:53 PM
Because all that is somewhat irrelevant to their business model. Whereas those with a sense of entitlement used to a system where the customer is at the start, centre and end of the universe, don't get this.

I would not think of it has a sense of entitlement but you probably have hit the bullseye. Think of it more as a marriage. If the husband(GW) never shows up with flowers, stays drunk/belligerent, lays in the bed like a cold, wet noodle.. then the marriage ain't going to last much longer. Some effort must be invested by both parties.

I've always found geeks, myself included, to be a fickle lot at even the best of times. I enjoy wargaming and painting but I can always move to board games and rpgs. Board gaming, in particular, is very welcoming of a wide swath of ppl. The group I play with is a very eclectic mix. I can't say the same for wargaming in my area.

Denzark
10-29-2014, 03:01 AM
Good point ATOG. This is why I think petitions like this won't necessarily work. Because it will take people not buying enough to turn a profit - for GW to sit up and listen. They know for a fact that some of the people signing this petition will still be buying from them at the same time!

CoffeeGrunt
10-29-2014, 04:55 AM
To be fair, I was chatting to a guy last night about prices, after discussing the new Nid monsters, we were talking about how it costs £40 for a trio of Hive Guard, or £36 for a trio of Crisis Suits, etc.

Ultimately, despite us hating the price, we both jokingly agreed that we'd end up buying a bunch anyway, it just takes a little longer to save up. Hence why an online petition will achieve something between bugger and all. GW need people to turn around and go, "yup, that's enough, no more GW, no more."

Path Walker
10-29-2014, 06:38 AM
What does game balance mean to you then? For me, it comes down to this. A player should not have lost the game before they even get to the table.

One of the reasons I have lost interest in 40K is this lack of balance. I have tried putting artificial limits on my army and it's still too easy to win. Minimum of 4 troop choices. Can't take more than 1 heavy support choice unless you also have 1 elite and 1 fast choice. Only 1 vehicle per 1000 points.

I don't want a damn easy button when I show up for a game. I don't want people to dread playing me because I have the OP army. At present, my opponent's unit synergy and tactical depth are irrelvelant without the artifical limits on my army.


I'm accepting of the fact that competitive game balance is a myth, an unattrainable and largely pointless goal.

Game balance is in the hands of the players, in how they play, if you play in such a way that allows your opponent to have fun as well as yourself, then you're both socially balanced,you're both getting fun out of the social engagement.

If people know you're a social player, they wont dread your army, if you don't abuse the rules or the army choices, they will enjoy playing the game, if you or your opponent writes an unblanced army list, thats an abuse of the spirit of the game, thats not for GW to fix, thats for your gaming circle to decide how to react.

I personally go by the idea of not being a dick when I make a list and my regular opponents do the same, I can take whatever units i like then, because I know my opponent is doing the same, not breaking the game to beat me.

Mr Mystery
10-29-2014, 07:37 AM
I've been just as bored to tears playing against a good bloke's Dwarf Gunline, camped on a hill, in a corner of the board, as when I've played a (insert rude word) with the same army and tactic though.

I do however find the issue of balance is somewhat overstated in GW games.

CoffeeGrunt
10-29-2014, 07:44 AM
Am I the only person that finds it amusing when someone brings up a 40K rules dispute, brandishing it as proof of the game's failings? The stuff like, "my Stompa charged some guys in a building, and READ AS WRITTEN, I can't attack them despite the model being able to reach them! OMFG fix it GW!"

Or, "Is my Wolf Lord S10 or S9 with a Thunderhammer?"

You know, stuff that at least my group has seemingly glossed over smoothly by going, "well of course it can hit them, look at it, but I'm going first cos you charged through Cover," or, "well a normal Thunderwolf is S10, so it'd be stupid for the Lord not to be."

I think that's why Privateer Press games are so popular, they feed you every piece of information so you don't have to use common sense to work out these kinks.

Mr Mystery
10-29-2014, 07:59 AM
Am I the only person that finds it amusing when someone brings up a 40K rules dispute, brandishing it as proof of the game's failings? The stuff like, "my Stompa charged some guys in a building, and READ AS WRITTEN, I can't attack them despite the model being able to reach them! OMFG fix it GW!"

Or, "Is my Wolf Lord S10 or S9 with a Thunderhammer?"

You know, stuff that at least my group has seemingly glossed over smoothly by going, "well of course it can hit them, look at it, but I'm going first cos you charged through Cover," or, "well a normal Thunderwolf is S10, so it'd be stupid for the Lord not to be."

I think that's why Privateer Press games are so popular, they feed you every piece of information so you don't have to use common sense to work out these kinks.

Common issue I see is people not actually reading what is there, but instead expecting the rule to say what they want it to. And people get so entrenched in their opinions.

Caitsidhe
10-29-2014, 08:09 AM
<chuckles> Well soon you won't have to listen to anyone bashing the game or complaining. :D Have you taken a good look around this Forum? Have you looked at the others? I pointed this out before, that activity on these places is a canary in the coal mine. I realize Games Workshop (and thus some of you) feel the voices quacking on the internet mean nothing. I, however, think it is very telling. I remember when I first joined this board. I couldn't keep up with all the conversations about Warhammer Fantasy (I still played that then) or the 40K ones. I've brought this subject up several times only to be answered that the lull is just seasonal. Well... the seasons keep changing and the lull keeps getting longer and more drawn out.

I still come here because I'm a shallow, evil person. :D I'm looking forward to the next financial report. I sold all my 40K stuff a month ago. Even so, I find the discussion and the sporting game of making observations and predictions quite entertaining. I'm basically hanging around to either get or give some "I told you so." I hold myself to a fair standard though. I will be here to eat crow if I'm wrong. So far, I've not been wrong. Judging soley by anecdotal evidence, almost all 40K in my rather large 1.4 million person city has dropped to almost nothing. We used to have 3-4 Tournaments a month. That means there was a tournament at one gaming store somewhere in town every weekend. Now we get about one a month or one every two months. I've seen this pattern before. When Warhammer Fantasy went out of vogue the same slow motion sucicide took place. We have only been geting a Fantasy Tournament every 2-3 months for the last two years.

I am seeing people switch to Bolt Action (of all games) that I considered Games Workshop die hards. These are people who didn't have a bad thing to say about Games Workshop no matter what company they kept, i.e. the kind of people who bought armies, painted armies, sold armies, and started over regularly. Now they play other games, and while they never had a thing to contribute to the debate before simply say, "eh, I'm done with them." So, declining sales, declining internet discussions, declining tournaments, declining pick up games, decreasinging number of stores, and ever increasing prices. Yeah.... I guess you guys are right... I'm reading way too much into this. :D

CoffeeGrunt
10-29-2014, 08:38 AM
It's not like the proliferation of Groups on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and other social media sites has started to kill off forums in general.

However, check out Bolter and Chainsword. Damn place is thriving like nowhere else in the hobby.

Mr Mystery
10-29-2014, 09:01 AM
Yup.

And I don't exactly see the boards for the other games here on BoLs jumping. X-Wing is fairly busy, but that's mostly down to my own mind vomit :p

Erik Setzer
10-29-2014, 09:11 AM
Hm... Let me try to hit on quick points, lots of stuff to reply to!

1. Some of the stuff above isn't "common sense." The Thunderwolf argument, for example. Technically, TWC should be S9 with a hammer or fist, but they opted to go easy and add a piece of wargear's mods to the statline in the book. If you look at the gear and all, it states a Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear, and there's a specific rule about how wargear bonuses stack up. You can't argue how it should be on "common sense" because to some people common sense would be sticking with what's written in the core rulebook. Kind of like how Murderface McMurderpants had a S7 weapon, and Furious Charge doesn't add a bonus to that, but people would claim "common sense" says it should. They recently errata'd the weapon to be S+1, which means FC can be used, but that shows that they did initially put out rules for a model that couldn't work as intended, and would have required playing the rules wrong to do so. It's a valid criticism. (Like how Ork vehicles can buy stikkbomb chukkas and yet every mob except Grots have stikkbombs already, and no one's going to be assault Grots out of a Battlewagon, so the option is rather moot and silly. Even Orks in mega-armour have stikkbombs, and it's not like they really have a use for them.)

2. The term "neckbeard," disregarding that it's definitely meant to be an insult of sorts, doesn't really work as an actually description for either of the two guys I'm about to refer to, but I can think of one guy each in 40K and WFB who just stomp all over their opponents without thinking of how it might make the person feel. With one of them, the manager had to step in and end a game and then let the guy he was playing have a go at someone else (which happened to me) in order to get the bad taste out of his mouth. So even GW games have those kind of players.

3. Yeah, a petition's not going to do jack squat. But hey, it makes for a good starting piece for a conversation, right?

4. It's only fitting social media kills off forums, since the large forums killed off the small guestbook-based "forums" and the old newsgroups. Granted, social media posts aren't organized anywhere near as neatly as a forum's topics.

Eldar_Atog
10-29-2014, 09:29 AM
I'm accepting of the fact that competitive game balance is a myth, an unattrainable and largely pointless goal.

Game balance is in the hands of the players, in how they play, if you play in such a way that allows your opponent to have fun as well as yourself, then you're both socially balanced,you're both getting fun out of the social engagement.

If people know you're a social player, they wont dread your army, if you don't abuse the rules or the army choices, they will enjoy playing the game, if you or your opponent writes an unblanced army list, thats an abuse of the spirit of the game, thats not for GW to fix, thats for your gaming circle to decide how to react.

I personally go by the idea of not being a dick when I make a list and my regular opponents do the same, I can take whatever units i like then, because I know my opponent is doing the same, not breaking the game to beat me.

Most of my playstyle revolves around not being a dick. It's probably the only reason that I can still get a semi-regular game in.

Game balance in a competitive setting is never going to work. Competition is going to naturally lead to imbalances because of the drive for efficiency. On the other hand, game balance is important in a casual setting.

Not everyone is at the same maturity level. It can be very difficult to take someone aside and tell them that they need to tone down their army. They might or might not understand that people are starting to avoid them because of the army they play. Let's face it.. this hobby is going to draw in socially awkward people. It gets to the point where it is easier to just avoid someone instead of dealing with the issue. I don't want to spend most of my time soothing egos. This is my outlet for de-stressing after a rough week at work.

I guess what I am trying to say is this. A casual setting degrades as game imbalance grows... especially when there is a large time/money investment. It gets to the point where it's easier to pull out a cooperative game like Arkam Horror instead of playing 40k. It's not going to matter so much if you get a weaker character when playing because you don't have much invested. You cares if you got stuck with the slimey politician this time. You might get the hot reseacher or the guy with the tommy gun next time.

Mr Mystery
10-29-2014, 10:17 AM
Maturity is a fair point, particular where you've raised it.

Me? I tend to comprise my armies of stuff I like the look of - typically big gribbly monsters and the like, and equally big gribbly units (18 Ogres FTW!). And a lot of the time, they turn out to be really quite horrible to fight. So I know my opponent would likely appreciate fair warning that I intend to field my heavily themed force, so they can take that into account. Some just take me on regardless, and I certainly don't have a perfect winning streak, but that's for my opponent, not me, to decide.

Modern example? Knight Armies. 100% legal and above board, even got a Codex. Can be defeated, but the ease of that depends on what you've got. A Tyranid Bug Swarm, with just a couple of lynchpin Big Bugs isn't going to tickle a Knight army. At all. But, Dark Eldar with Darklight weapons up the wazoo? They might feel a bit more confident.

The entire nature of the game is cooperative - you need an opponent, and by needing an opponent, you inherently need their consent for a game.

In terms of competitive play, tournaments and the like? That scene is more prominent online, because online is a good way to find your next event, and that can lead to the conclusion majority of gamers want to play competitive. Now, my experience? That's not terribly true. Even those gaming buddies I know who are mad for their tournaments play more 'friendly' games down the local club, without any comp or TO Rulings etc.

Ultimately, irrespective of where you play, if you're a shortened form of Richard about things (rules, your army, painting etc) you're just gonna run out of opponents, one way or the other - and that experience is universal. It's not just GW games. It's not just miniature wargames. If you're a derriere to those partaking in a mutual effort with you, you'll soon be living in a distinctly non-mutual social group of one.

Wildeybeast
10-29-2014, 10:50 AM
*raised eye brow* So 2 equally skilled players, one using sisters and one using eldar, have EQUAL odds of winning a game? Orks vs Tau?

I should clarify. I meant Warhammer, the game of fantasy battles, rather than Warhammer 40,000 the game of space battles. Hence my point about Games Workshop being more than just 40k. I haven't played 40k since the start of the last edition. I know it is the biggest selling and most popular product, but making statements about GW's whole company ethos based purely on one product they make is not exactly accurate or fair.

TheCreator
11-06-2014, 08:41 PM
Petition has reached 10,000!
Now to get a hold of GW.

DarkLink
11-06-2014, 09:39 PM
I'm accepting of the fact that competitive game balance is a myth, an unattrainable and largely pointless goal.

Do you know what an asymptote is? You're saying that just because you can't quite actually reach perfect balance, then there's no point in even trying at all. Might as well tell Usain Bolt to hang up his cleats, because he's never going to get a 9-second 100m.

Gothmog
11-06-2014, 10:24 PM
Petition has reached 10,000!
Now to get a hold of GW.

It has been the whole time. [email protected], from what I understand of change.org, gets an email each time the petition is signed.

I am sure corporate GW at least knows about it now, especially since I think I actually did manage to provide some emails of important people (CEO and COO) as well.

BUT I am still going to print and mail the petition to a few of the big wigs with the signatures attached. Hopefully that will help drive the point home.

As long as some sort of discussion is happening at GW, I am happy. Who knows, maybe this is going to be a talking point at all the potential CEO interviews.

Mr Mystery
11-07-2014, 05:10 AM
I doubt it.

Corporations don't have to do owt with petitions, especially those with pre-set points demanding they essentially make an entirely different product.

CoffeeGrunt
11-07-2014, 05:48 AM
GW have a business plan agreed to by their board of directors. It's unlikely to change based on this petition, especially if they research into the sites promoting it, (and they will, because it demands massive changes in the game,) they'll see a large contingent of people railing against it, and that some of the people who signed it only agreed with one or two points.

We need to start setting aside price as a complaint. It's not going to move, GW have been pretty clear on that. Their prices are comparable if not better than other vendors of similar quality. I don't care if Perry Miniatures sell 36 Civil War minis for the price of 10 Tactical Marines - those Tactical Marines have more detail, far more posability, and much more customisation.

The problem with this petition is it's very much, "here's what me and a few others want, and a larger group who want aspects of it but not the whole."

There's also the inherent problem with online petitions, that corporations are free to ignore them, knowing that doing so will change nothing.

DarkLink
11-07-2014, 08:35 AM
If a petition were to change their business plan, it would have to be something that would cost next to nothing to impliment and contain hard numbers showing significant revenue increases. Restructuring their business would cost massive amounts of money, and 'it might draw more players' is not a compelling reason in and of itself to expect more revenue, especially since most of the signers already likely give GW plenty of money since they presumably play.

Gothmog
11-07-2014, 09:23 PM
GW have a business plan agreed to by their board of directors. It's unlikely to change based on this petition, especially if they research into the sites promoting it, (and they will, because it demands massive changes in the game,) they'll see a large contingent of people railing against it, and that some of the people who signed it only agreed with one or two points.

We need to start setting aside price as a complaint. It's not going to move, GW have been pretty clear on that. Their prices are comparable if not better than other vendors of similar quality. I don't care if Perry Miniatures sell 36 Civil War minis for the price of 10 Tactical Marines - those Tactical Marines have more detail, far more posability, and much more customisation.

The problem with this petition is it's very much, "here's what me and a few others want, and a larger group who want aspects of it but not the whole."

There's also the inherent problem with online petitions, that corporations are free to ignore them, knowing that doing so will change nothing.

I actually agree with you for the most part. And while not everyone agrees with every point, I tried to touch on some of the wider reaching/more common ones to appeal to the greatest crowd.

The hope is that at least discussion occurs behind the doors at GW. No immediate change was ever expected, least of all by myself. The desire is that there is a shift in the corporate mindset to, over the long term, become more accommodating IRT the points laid out in the petition. At the heart of this is essentially "You make a game, not just models" which at times it seems GW has forgotten. Their own website has a segment titled "business model" and it says "We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever" as their core strategy. As I say in the petition it should say "We make the best wargame in the world accompanied by the highest quality and best fantasy miniatures in the world". They are GAMES Workshop, not just Citadel Miniatures

As for the comparison to Perry Miniatures, don't the Perry brothers design and sculpt alot of things for Citadel?

Denzark
11-08-2014, 02:15 AM
That 'investor relations' email is missing the letter 'n'...

Caitsidhe
11-08-2014, 10:09 AM
I like the petition for more dark, amusing reasons. It isn't as if the current Board of Directors and so-called management of the company will be able to claim they were in the dark or caught by surprise by continuing bad economic reports. The petition, as a representative of the actual products consumer, makes it very clear that something is wrong. So if/when they continue to perform poorly, it will be very hard to make excuses... well... excuses anyone is going to believe.

CoffeeGrunt
11-08-2014, 07:49 PM
Given GW's new free rules stance, I don't think there's much left in this petition apart from overall pricing and making the game tournament-oriented.

The good answer to the latter is, "why don't you guys all decide on a format?"

"Well...we tried, but everyone had different ideas on how it should be."

"So if we released a singular vision after dedicating time and personnel to it, there will likely still be a large percentage of people who hate it?"

"Well...when you put it like that..."

Caitsidhe
11-09-2014, 12:10 AM
Given GW's new free rules stance, I don't think there's much left in this petition apart from overall pricing and making the game tournament-oriented.

The good answer to the latter is, "why don't you guys all decide on a format?"

"Well...we tried, but everyone had different ideas on how it should be."

"So if we released a singular vision after dedicating time and personnel to it, there will likely still be a large percentage of people who hate it?"

"Well...when you put it like that..."

Except that doesn't work... it never has for any rules system. The fundamental draw of a game which crosses borders and personal relationships is a common standard. Telling people to play however they want is a foolish abdication of authority because it will just further isolate players in smaller and smaller groups. They are literally wringing the neck of the goose that laid the golden egg. :D If they released a balanced rules set that works the majority of people will be happy. There will always be people who complain. That is the nature of people. However, if you make a solid product the majority of people will be content. If you build up a good relationship with your consumers, you earn leeway and even fewer people complain.

For example, I also play Warmachine/Hordes. Am I 100% happy with their rules? No. However, on the whole their rules are balanced and they work. It is as simple as that. Because of that fact, I simply accept the stuff I don't really care for and make the accomidations. If their rules were not balanced or didn't work on the whole, I would crucify them (and stop playing). Privateer Press goes all out on their consumer relations, and they go the extra mile in supporting tournaments. The relationship they build with their customers also buys them leeway when they screw up (which they do from time to time). Balance is tricky and a complex game is going to have one or two mistakes along the way. Why isn't Privateer taken to the woodshed everytime this happens? Quite often the exact same people are playing Privateer Press that play 40K. Public relations mattesr and they do it better than Games Workshop.

DarkLink
11-09-2014, 07:41 PM
When it comes down to it, though, you would essentially be asking GW to spend a bunch of money to maybe possibly increase their revenue. It costs money to run events, and they're not just going to take the word of some random people on the internet that running an event will make more sales. It's little to no effort to sign a petition, but actually spending money? You'd have to convince GW that these people, who have already spent money on GW, will go out and spend so much more that the extra expenses will be worth it. Without some sort of detailed plan, you're not likely to convince them that it will be worth spending the money. GW could run adepticon/lvo/nova style events, but that costs a lot of money and it's outside their core business model of selling, well, models.


Instead of simply saying "GW should support tournaments and stuff", give them a reason to want to do it of their own accord. Math out a business plan, spreadsheets and everything, showing "hey, you've got X customers, you can engage this many and get them to spend this much more than they already were, and here's how you can do it without spending any money". That's what will speak to the managers and decision makers, not a 'well, a bunch of people on the internet whined about how they didn't like us'.

Caitsidhe
11-09-2014, 11:39 PM
When it comes down to it, though, you would essentially be asking GW to spend a bunch of money to maybe possibly increase their revenue. It costs money to run events, and they're not just going to take the word of some random people on the internet that running an event will make more sales. It's little to no effort to sign a petition, but actually spending money? You'd have to convince GW that these people, who have already spent money on GW, will go out and spend so much more that the extra expenses will be worth it. Without some sort of detailed plan, you're not likely to convince them that it will be worth spending the money. GW could run adepticon/lvo/nova style events, but that costs a lot of money and it's outside their core business model of selling, well, models.

I don't have to convince them of anything. It is the LACK of money that talks. :D Four to five years ago Games Workshop was raking in the money. They were producing more models in a broader line on a regular basis. They also supported the heck out of tournaments. Their gradual decline in profits seems to be keeping pace with the same reduction in tournament support, customer goodwill, rising prices, and a general reduction in their range. I suppose one could try to blame it on any one of those things, but more than likely it is all of them. I've said it before and I will say it again, if they think (as they have said) that the hobby is buying Games Workshop models they are smoking Crack (I assume they must have Crack in the UK) or perhaps Bath Salts. A significant portion of their American market at least is made up of people who buy the models to play the game. I won't speculate on our friends across the pond because I am not qualified to do so. What I can say, however, is that unless they are willing to cede the American market, they better put down the Crackpipe and get realistic. Their models, however nice they look, are absolutely worthless without a game and community in which to play that game. There is ZERO collector value on these items anymore. There hasn't been any such value in a long time. Technology and availability make them like luxury cars, i.e. they depreciate in value 95% when they roll off the lot. That means they NEED a good game people want to play and a community of players with which to breed more.


Instead of simply saying "GW should support tournaments and stuff", give them a reason to want to do it of their own accord. Math out a business plan, spreadsheets and everything, showing "hey, you've got X customers, you can engage this many and get them to spend this much more than they already were, and here's how you can do it without spending any money". That's what will speak to the managers and decision makers, not a 'well, a bunch of people on the internet whined about how they didn't like us'.

Why should I do the numbers for them? I'll be happy to do so if they want to pay me. Besides, I'm certain they have people who have given realistic numbers to the people in charge. They recently pink slipped a huge number of middle managers and people who suggested that there are problems. :D The issue isn't that Games Workshop doesn't know the information. It is that they choose to disbelieve it. They aren't ignorant; they are willfully ignorant which is an entirely different kind of obtuse. For my own part, I'm not whining about them. I dumped them. The whole process is just entertainment for me now. I sold the whole the lot and moved on to other games. I follow what is happening to Games Workshop because I made bets with certain people, predictions, and have a juvenile interest in seeing how close to the mark I hit. Since I am no longer a player, I don't care how bad they suck.

40kGamer
11-10-2014, 01:02 PM
I'm not convinced that GW needs to actually spend money on 'running' the tournament circuit, producing a set of rules that make a real effort to be fun and fair would likely be good enough. There are more then enough 3rd parties willing to organize and run the actual events. The current 'devil may care' attitude toward their own game is just flat out confusing.

CoffeeGrunt
11-10-2014, 01:31 PM
But other than Tau and Eldar, the game does seem to be "balanced," provided you aren't min/maxing it in a deliberate effort to negate said balance.

40kGamer
11-10-2014, 01:46 PM
Quite true that Tau and Eldar are the reigning gamebusters. It was apparent soon after their release that they were out of balance (especially Eldar) and with the current system we'll be waiting years for this to change. (If it does). They have done a reasonable job with the most recent books which is refreshing... although Imperial Knights was quite the monkey wrench when it was first released... and 7th has some glaring issues. I just think it would be nice if GW had an interest in addressing these obvious to everyone balancing blunders in more of a real time setting.

Mr Mystery
11-10-2014, 02:14 PM
I'm not convinced that GW needs to actually spend money on 'running' the tournament circuit, producing a set of rules that make a real effort to be fun and fair would likely be good enough. There are more then enough 3rd parties willing to organize and run the actual events. The current 'devil may care' attitude toward their own game is just flat out confusing.

No matter what GW did, some would find fault. That's generally what happens when you has such a large customer base.

Their current approach is their approach, and pretty much always has been. Knock out the models, give people something to do with them once assembled and painted.

They've never set out to create a game for a tournament setting.

To me, it's like complaining your stock Ford Focus can't win a F1 Grand Prix or Rally. It's not designed for that.