Chameleon Skink
olderplayer
New Member
- Messages
- 164
- Likes Received
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 0
Some really excellent points and insights from Sleboda, SpineyNorman and others. I really think that the LM army book is one of the more balanced books. Yet, they kind of missed opportunities with some existing and new models in ways that seem too obvious to experienced gamers.
As a financial analyst who has spent more than twenty years analyzing and valuing companies, including large public companies, I have to say that GW's business stratgey and lack of business acumen totally baffles me. I do not understand how spending more time writing sound and balanced rules is somehow inconsistent with a good marketing and business strategy. GW loses too many customers to frustrating and poorly written rules and imbalance issues than anythnig else from talking with old ex-GW store managers, FLGS store owners and long-time players (both tournament and casual). It simply does not cost that much more to do it right. The cost of mistakes is too great such that, if I were running GW, I'd have a review committee of gamers with authority over final release of each rule book and army book wrt to point costs and rules conflicts. Then I would have a group appointed to monitor each game system and aggressively clarify and amend rules and, when advisable, adjust point costs (which GW almost never corrects) as obvious errors in balance (both internal to the book and externaly overall between books) and rules disputes arise. [When I write reports, my work is typcially reviewed internally before gping final by someone with veto authority and by representatives of my client or multiple clients (often attorneys). ]
Consider this: when the 8th ed BRB for WHFB was printed, the victory conditions were contradictory and so poorly thought out that they printed an insert to be provided with the BRB to correct the error and had to FAQ the issue. Yet, they still never got the victory condition quite right. Any marginally competitive gamer would have spotted that mistake immediately. How did that occur in a public company of this size and with a significant new edition for their second largest game system? Also, simply looking at the 7th edition book should have told them that the victory condition in 8th edition was poorly written and insufficient, not scaled to the sizes of the armies and the type of battle. Is that a reflection of the hostility of the design team or primary author of the BRB to anything other than casual play for fun?
The report from someone that play tested is very similar to a number of other stories I've heard from ex-GW people and stuff that has leaked out over time. Is it too much freedom combined with arrogance and British stubbornness that causes the design group to so consistently miss the mark? It takes a lot to accept constructive and even hostile criticism and respond affirmatively to it, but that is what good businesses have to do to survive and grow. I have no problem with the models and style of the book driving the rules. I understande GW, as a business, will want to trot out new models and get us to buy them (shoot Magic-the-Gathering does that to the extreme). At the end, the issue is one or writting the rules clearly and setting the point costs of models and upgrades and options correctly. It is very hard to write rules clearly and get the point costs right, so I appreciate that errors will occurr, and GW is getting much better. But GW os not close to where they should be compared to others with a lot less resources., and the refusal to address issues as they arise with FAQ's is mystifying.
I think the most telling point is that GW makes certain new modelsand prints new army books that it would like to sell/should want to make us buy for business reasons. But, yet, GW often writes rules and sets the point costs for those new models and armies such that they are uncompetitive and effectively reduces the sales of those models and armies.
I did analyze GW over time. 1. They let a horrible War of the Rings book go out without adequate testing or ignored the feedback. Then GW had its stores in the US try to force players of Lord of the Rings intto WOTR in order to get them to buy more models and play larger games. LOTR was a great and fun introductory skirmish game my son started gaming with when he was young. It should have stayed such and been used to draw poeple into trading up to 40K and WHFB, which is what happened in our case. The WOTR rules so favored certain armies and army builds that the in-store 3 game events were all being won by either Mordor or an army with cheap Golbins with a few characters that were undercosted and a Flying Dragon (that was very hard to kill, had flying, had flaming shooting attacks, could cast magic spells, etc) with Mordor allies. Mordor Ring Wraiths had the ability to cast certain spells cheaply that esetially prevented targetted opposing units from charging and shooting. In addition, each Ring Wraith buffed the unit it was in, with one giving a ward save that (when successful) transferred the wound to the enemy unit if within range. Almost everyone playing the LOTR game that we knew quit, and, despite GW trying to resuurect LOTR, now with Hobbit, we find no interest in playing the game. 2. They poorly managed and promoted the WHFB and 40K business and began to see erosion to other games. The result was losses and marginal profits in fiscal years (end in late May early June) 2006 through 2008.
GW reacted by raising prices and changing strategies a bit. The roll out of new WHFB and 40K rule books led to a partial recovery in profits in fiscal 2009 and 2010. But GW is essentially flat in projected growth and profitability. depsite price increases. In real terms, GW has never recovered to its peak in 2003 and has not grown in real terms relative to where it was ten yesrs ago. GW should be as much as two to three times larger in revenues and profits and would be much larger if GW ;properly embraced the gaming community (including ETC events and tournaments), properly priced and promotted its products, and if game design was more balanced and scalable. GW is losing WHFB players over time due to the entry costs being too high (in money, time to collect and build and paint the models, and complexity to learn the rules), some long time players objecting to 8th edition rules (which always happens to some extent with significant new rules, and I personally like 8th edition except the OP magic spells like dwellers and purple sun), and the 8th ed rules not being scalable to playing smaller battles (new players find the game clunky and difficult to work at the lower point cost levels, especially for some armies relative to others). Their management of relations with FLGS has also been quite poor and they have lost previously loyal retailers that no longer carry or promote their games in inventory.
As a financial analyst who has spent more than twenty years analyzing and valuing companies, including large public companies, I have to say that GW's business stratgey and lack of business acumen totally baffles me. I do not understand how spending more time writing sound and balanced rules is somehow inconsistent with a good marketing and business strategy. GW loses too many customers to frustrating and poorly written rules and imbalance issues than anythnig else from talking with old ex-GW store managers, FLGS store owners and long-time players (both tournament and casual). It simply does not cost that much more to do it right. The cost of mistakes is too great such that, if I were running GW, I'd have a review committee of gamers with authority over final release of each rule book and army book wrt to point costs and rules conflicts. Then I would have a group appointed to monitor each game system and aggressively clarify and amend rules and, when advisable, adjust point costs (which GW almost never corrects) as obvious errors in balance (both internal to the book and externaly overall between books) and rules disputes arise. [When I write reports, my work is typcially reviewed internally before gping final by someone with veto authority and by representatives of my client or multiple clients (often attorneys). ]
Consider this: when the 8th ed BRB for WHFB was printed, the victory conditions were contradictory and so poorly thought out that they printed an insert to be provided with the BRB to correct the error and had to FAQ the issue. Yet, they still never got the victory condition quite right. Any marginally competitive gamer would have spotted that mistake immediately. How did that occur in a public company of this size and with a significant new edition for their second largest game system? Also, simply looking at the 7th edition book should have told them that the victory condition in 8th edition was poorly written and insufficient, not scaled to the sizes of the armies and the type of battle. Is that a reflection of the hostility of the design team or primary author of the BRB to anything other than casual play for fun?
The report from someone that play tested is very similar to a number of other stories I've heard from ex-GW people and stuff that has leaked out over time. Is it too much freedom combined with arrogance and British stubbornness that causes the design group to so consistently miss the mark? It takes a lot to accept constructive and even hostile criticism and respond affirmatively to it, but that is what good businesses have to do to survive and grow. I have no problem with the models and style of the book driving the rules. I understande GW, as a business, will want to trot out new models and get us to buy them (shoot Magic-the-Gathering does that to the extreme). At the end, the issue is one or writting the rules clearly and setting the point costs of models and upgrades and options correctly. It is very hard to write rules clearly and get the point costs right, so I appreciate that errors will occurr, and GW is getting much better. But GW os not close to where they should be compared to others with a lot less resources., and the refusal to address issues as they arise with FAQ's is mystifying.
I think the most telling point is that GW makes certain new modelsand prints new army books that it would like to sell/should want to make us buy for business reasons. But, yet, GW often writes rules and sets the point costs for those new models and armies such that they are uncompetitive and effectively reduces the sales of those models and armies.
I did analyze GW over time. 1. They let a horrible War of the Rings book go out without adequate testing or ignored the feedback. Then GW had its stores in the US try to force players of Lord of the Rings intto WOTR in order to get them to buy more models and play larger games. LOTR was a great and fun introductory skirmish game my son started gaming with when he was young. It should have stayed such and been used to draw poeple into trading up to 40K and WHFB, which is what happened in our case. The WOTR rules so favored certain armies and army builds that the in-store 3 game events were all being won by either Mordor or an army with cheap Golbins with a few characters that were undercosted and a Flying Dragon (that was very hard to kill, had flying, had flaming shooting attacks, could cast magic spells, etc) with Mordor allies. Mordor Ring Wraiths had the ability to cast certain spells cheaply that esetially prevented targetted opposing units from charging and shooting. In addition, each Ring Wraith buffed the unit it was in, with one giving a ward save that (when successful) transferred the wound to the enemy unit if within range. Almost everyone playing the LOTR game that we knew quit, and, despite GW trying to resuurect LOTR, now with Hobbit, we find no interest in playing the game. 2. They poorly managed and promoted the WHFB and 40K business and began to see erosion to other games. The result was losses and marginal profits in fiscal years (end in late May early June) 2006 through 2008.
GW reacted by raising prices and changing strategies a bit. The roll out of new WHFB and 40K rule books led to a partial recovery in profits in fiscal 2009 and 2010. But GW is essentially flat in projected growth and profitability. depsite price increases. In real terms, GW has never recovered to its peak in 2003 and has not grown in real terms relative to where it was ten yesrs ago. GW should be as much as two to three times larger in revenues and profits and would be much larger if GW ;properly embraced the gaming community (including ETC events and tournaments), properly priced and promotted its products, and if game design was more balanced and scalable. GW is losing WHFB players over time due to the entry costs being too high (in money, time to collect and build and paint the models, and complexity to learn the rules), some long time players objecting to 8th edition rules (which always happens to some extent with significant new rules, and I personally like 8th edition except the OP magic spells like dwellers and purple sun), and the 8th ed rules not being scalable to playing smaller battles (new players find the game clunky and difficult to work at the lower point cost levels, especially for some armies relative to others). Their management of relations with FLGS has also been quite poor and they have lost previously loyal retailers that no longer carry or promote their games in inventory.
Anyway as mentioned whether LM is balanced internally or not is another topic entirely.
