Battletomes, a bygone era?

[Sleboda]

4 minutes ago, 123lac said:

What if I don't want the art or the stories. I just want the rules.

The business practice doesn't make sense. Bury the faction rules in the last few pages of the book just to force people to buy it.

It's a bit scummy.

You may feel it's scummy.  That's your opinion, and nobody should fault you for having it.  They may disagree, as I do, but you clearly can have that view if you like.

You may feel that it makes no sense. Again, an opinion.  Granted, one that runs counter to decades of established and proven success, but if that's your view, so be it.

What if you don't want the art and stories? Well, then we are still at my original position - you just don't make the purchase.  There are several products on the market that I want, or would want if they were modified to be more to my liking. Sometimes I buy them anyway because they are close enough. Sometimes I skip the purchase.  What I don't do is steal them. I'm not suggesting that you, personally, would steal.  I just discussing the point you have raised.

BTW, as examples, I thought the Fungoid Cave Shaman was a fantastic model, as was the Knight of Shrouds.  Both were about $5-$10 higher priced that I felt I wanted to pay.  I skipped them. I still really want both models, but I'm not resorting to illegal activity to obtain them or a knock-off of them.

[Sleboda]

6 minutes ago, 123lac said:

If we're talking about economics the I'd argue GW are not pricing their goods at the efficient level.

I'd also imagine that GW products have a reasonable price elasticity, so that lower price of entry results in greater demand.

Luxury products tend to have high elastic demand, and you yourself just called these luxury goods.

Maybe GW is looking to replace the financial staff that has seen them be successful for 30+ years of their model.  If so, put in your resume.

[123lac]

10 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

You may feel it's scummy.  That's your opinion, and nobody should fault you for having it.  They may disagree, as I do, but you clearly can have that view if you like.

You may feel that it makes no sense. Again, an opinion.  Granted, one that runs counter to decades of established and proven success, but if that's your view, so be it.

What if you don't want the art and stories? Well, then we are still at my original position - you just don't make the purchase.  There are several products on the market that I want, or would want if they were modified to be more to my liking. Sometimes I buy them anyway because they are close enough. Sometimes I skip the purchase.  What I don't do is steal them. I'm not suggesting that you, personally, would steal.  I just discussing the point you have raised.

BTW, as examples, I thought the Fungoid Cave Shaman was a fantastic model, as was the Knight of Shrouds.  Both were about $5-$10 higher priced that I felt I wanted to pay.  I skipped them. I still really want both models, but I'm not resorting to illegal activity to obtain them or a knock-off of them.

It's an interesting point (for me) that you raise about the models.

I'd never consider stealing a physical good like a model, nor would I sympathise with anyone who did. To me that is immoral.

 

I suppose a comparison to video games can be made, or at least this is how I view it: when you buy a game you are able to play it out of the box. The rules are coded into the product that you have purchased. DLC and microtransactions notwithstanding.

 

When someone new to the hobby buys GW models and downloads the core rules they can play right away but only on a basic level. If they want to use warscroll battalions then that's a book they have to buy. If they want to play matched play (who doesn't) then that's another book they have to buy. If they want to use realm artifacts and know their opponents rules...you get the point.

 

At what point does the financial commitment end just for someone who wants to play the game with the models that they've forked out hundreds if not thousands for.

[Overread]

The core of this is entitlement. 

 

You are arguing that you are entitled to more than GW gives you by virtue of price, whilst accepting that what you are buying is an optional luxury good and not a life essential in any form. As such GW can set the price and the content irrespective of your own personal standards or levels of entitlement.

For many what GW sells matches with their desires - yes everyone would like free and cheaper, but those buying accept the price on the product box.

For yourself it seems that you want more than what GW offers you for the price they charge. Now there's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, however you are taking and proposing and promoting a pathway that involves illegal activity which can be detrimental to a company by denying them an expected purchase. 

You could be harming GW because they are using profits from battletome sales to shore up the discounts offered in getting started boxes or the overall price of all models. If you expect GW to cut out the Battletome then any income it generations and any features it pays for are still going to be required after its gone. So you might "save" there, but it might also mean prices on many things inch up a little more to cover that loss. 

 

 

Remember GW is a big ship in the waters of wargaming. Whilst this gives them big resources, it also gives them big overheats and commitments. If they cut income from rules then the payment for rules development has to come from somewhere else in their product lineup. So that would mean charging more elsewhere in order to make up for that shortfall. 

Many smaller companies have free rules or opt to go for the pattern, but they are often operating with far smaller teams so the impact is far less and often mean of the team might be pulling more than one role so the shortfall can be more easily absorbed. Or if they went free from launch, the funding is already accounted for in the games overall prices. 

 

 

Lets not also forget that GW also has many stores all over the world to run; having physical rules and a codex/battletome that a staff member can reach for and say "here have a look at this Skaven battletome. It's chock full of lore and pictures and rules and stuff" So take that away and now you've go to print out something else to replace that big attraction feature to a new gamer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said I'm fully in support of having other options on the market, but that's the key options not a full swap to smoething else. .

 

[Sleboda]

4 minutes ago, 123lac said:

you get the point.

I do, and I understand the video game comparison.  I have seen others with similar views who also, like you, draw the line at physical goods (glad to see you express that, btw).

I just don't know why the principle doesn't cross over from physical to digital.

Regardless of the reasons we don't want to make a purchase for a certain item (price, color, usefulness, longevity, need, broad use, etc.) we are still saying "I wish to obtain a thing, but there is an element of it I find disagreeable or off-putting."  It still comes down to a choice to make the purchase or to not make the purchase.  Using my love of all things Metal \m/ as an example, I don't care if it's a CD (new In This Moment physical disc), an MP3 (same album, but obtained as a download), or a concert (an ephemeral experiencing of the same music) - the format of of the music does not free me from the moral obligation to refrain from taking it in a way that the product's 'maker' does not permit. I should not steal the disc, steal it digitally off of the 'net, or sneak into the venue to hear the concert. There are things about each format I like and don't like, and I have to decide if the pluses outweigh the negatives enough for the purchase of the thing.  In the case of the new ITM album, btw, I have it disc, own the MP3, and am going to the show here in Chicago in December.

[Ravinsild]

2 hours ago, 123lac said:

You can't seriously expect people to fork out $50 just to see the rules of their army.

If you want to play AoS well you need to know the factions-specific rules for all armies, plus the generals handbook, plus malign sorcery. All up that's hundreds if not over a thousand dollars in books.

It's extremely anti-consumer.

lol wut. 

I pay 1.99$ for Azyr and have access to all the Warscrolls. Before I fight an enemy army I haven’t fought before I just read their Warscrolls to get an idea of what’s dangerous. 

I do pay for the Warscroll Cards and the Battletomes but that’s just because I want to read the stories and have flash cards with fancy art. I could write it down for free and stuff but... I like the official stuff. I just remember FAQ in my head. 

 

[123lac]

11 minutes ago, Overread said:

The core of this is entitlement. 

 

You are arguing that you are entitled to more than GW gives you by virtue of price, whilst accepting that what you are buying is an optional luxury good and not a life essential in any form. As such GW can set the price and the content irrespective of your own personal standards or levels of entitlement.

For many what GW sells matches with their desires - yes everyone would like free and cheaper, but those buying accept the price on the product box.

For yourself it seems that you want more than what GW offers you for the price they charge. Now there's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, however you are taking and proposing and promoting a pathway that involves illegal activity which can be detrimental to a company by denying them an expected purchase. 

You could be harming GW because they are using profits from battletome sales to shore up the discounts offered in getting started boxes or the overall price of all models. If you expect GW to cut out the Battletome then any income it generations and any features it pays for are still going to be required after its gone. So you might "save" there, but it might also mean prices on many things inch up a little more to cover that loss. 

 

 

Remember GW is a big ship in the waters of wargaming. Whilst this gives them big resources, it also gives them big overheats and commitments. If they cut income from rules then the payment for rules development has to come from somewhere else in their product lineup. So that would mean charging more elsewhere in order to make up for that shortfall. 

Many smaller companies have free rules or opt to go for the pattern, but they are often operating with far smaller teams so the impact is far less and often mean of the team might be pulling more than one role so the shortfall can be more easily absorbed. Or if they went free from launch, the funding is already accounted for in the games overall prices. 

 

 

Lets not also forget that GW also has many stores all over the world to run; having physical rules and a codex/battletome that a staff member can reach for and say "here have a look at this Skaven battletome. It's chock full of lore and pictures and rules and stuff" So take that away and now you've go to print out something else to replace that big attraction feature to a new gamer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said I'm fully in support of having other options on the market, but that's the key options not a full swap to smoething else. .

 

See I'm not so sure of this angle.

GW has the advantage of economy of scale. If anyone can afford to charge a little less, or offer a little more for free, it's the big ship in the water.

The reason big ships, or big companies, don't charge less is when they operate as monopolies in a market.

I'd say GW is behaving as a monopoly.

[Sleboda]

Be careful. It's easy to toss out words like "monopoly" in these discussions, and it's trendy, fun, and rallies folks to a cause, but in commerce in the US, that term had very specific and well-defined parameters.

GW is, in no actual sense at all ... at all ... a monopoly.

[Qaz]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

GW is, in no actual sense at all ... at all ... a monopoly.

I believe it is or at least near-monopoly. In the same way that Marvel was argued(investigated?) to be a monopoly in 1970s(?).  but the thing is, it gained that monopoly through … better products and to certain extent, better business acumen. (Hence not breaking any laws) There are overly priced models out there (Witch Aelves, Wracks, Beasts of Nurgle) but that's where I think GW is testing market price elasticity. 

I wouldn't be a surprised they have a chart of sales price vs. perceived 'need' of model purchase (power,  single key character, OP rules etc).

And people still buy, so they must be doing something right. 

[Overread]

Bigger business only lowers prices on some situations, there's always a bottom line. Plus if a bigger business grows to a sufficient size then it can actually raise prices because the overhead on the company gets much higher. Don't forget GW produces all their models in house in the UK. That gives them far better quality control, but it also makes their production significantly more expensive than if they were to hire a factory in China to do the casting work for them (which is what many start up and kickstarter model companies do). This is why sometimes a new company can undercut bigger companies; because the new company is smaller and might use new or different technology that the old company can't invest into or chooses not to invest into (retooling can be a huge expense). 

Yes GW through size has more potential customers, but they also spend out way more. Production in the UK, running international highstreet stores (esp at a time when many countries, esp the UK, are very unfriendly to highstreet stores that are not food outlets*); spare parts in models**. These are all real world costs without considering that each element of GW production has specific staff or teams working on them - again a small start up is often hiring in a few sculptors to do design work, then  a lot of other tasks might be only a handful of people. 

Plus its a luxury product in a niche market. That's another big thing to remember that GW is the big giant in miniature wargaming, but when you start to compare it to a lot of other big names they are a tiny fish in the water (ok maybe a modest tiny fish). Even computer games far out strip GW's market today

ps don't take this that I'm saying GW are perfect, because they are not. There are clear areas where they can make significant improvements and they already have made some big ones in the last few years with their chagne of management and focus

 

* it would not surprise me if, in time, we see GW pair with a major food company at a national level to try and help offset the rental and highstreet operational costs. 

** pretty much everyone who collects warhammer has a big box of spare parts and alternate and optional model parts. And mostly only GW does this; almost every other company, even Privateer Press, has only exactly what you need in the box for each model

[deynon]

9 hours ago, 123lac said:

What if I don't want the art or the stories. I just want the rules.

The business practice doesn't make sense. Bury the faction rules in the last few pages of the book just to force people to buy it.

It's a bit scummy.

You'd like italian gw battletomes and codex so. Cause GW print italian books with only rules at discount price. It's some year now. I'm gaining a big english warhammer book collection

[karch]

On 9/19/2018 at 12:04 PM, gabbi said:

Dark Age (admittedly not the most widely played miniature game out there) and Warmachine/Hordes are on the same boat. Phisical books with pictures, background and model stats -as they are at the time of release- then model stats dynamically updated as the publisher sees fit.
 

X-wing was gone a step further with 2.0.

They have removed point costs altogether from the cards, and the only way to make your list is using the (extremely buggy) app.

 

[paul7926]

Lots of interesting points above.

Personally I just wish they would streamline things because the confusion in what you actually need is very off putting.  Over multiple years I've played pretty much all the tabletop wargames out there and have a long history of loving GW stuff but even I had to ask my local GW manager what I actually needed to get back into AoS 2 as it just wasn't clear or intuitive.

I think the base rules are free to download which is good.

After that I don't mind paying for the Generals handbook continually as they update points costs and specific unit rules each year.  That's not a huge ongoing cost to have a lot of important stuff in one place.

I do object to needing battle tomes for a page or two of 'rules' that are probably already wrong if you are not buying it on the day of release.

However in a weird twist I would not mind paying for a lore/hobby supplement (which is what I think the battletome should become)  despite the fact that it would become a totally optional  purchase at that point.  Just add a few more pages of pictures, painting guides and story to replace the 'rules' you take out.

I think they either need to incorporate the 'rules' part of a battletome into the GHB or simply give them free inside a 'start collecting' box for the faction.  So if you want to play <insert latest army of hype here> then you just pick up the box with the specific warscrolls all in one go.  Even if you want to make them available stand alone then I'll pay a couple of quid for a suppliment style book of a few pages with them in.  That way I have less to carry around and reference and I'd even be tempted to 'keep up' with armies I don't collect for that minimal cost where as now I would never buy a battletome for an army I don't play.

At the moment the 'rules' are in too many places. 

 

[Lior'Lec]

     Let’s all remember: the only thing you need to play are the core rules (free) and the warscroll cards (again free). Battletomes are only really necessary if you are playing competitively. My first couple games were played with a mixture of tokens and miscellaneous 3rd party models to see if I liked how the system played. I currently own seven faction’s battletomes and full well intend to get more, but I play less than 10% of my games with alliegence abilities because the person I primarily play with can not afford to buy the battletome for his faction (though I’ve since lent him my copy so he can learn more about his faction’s fluff and strengthen his army).

     Allegiance abilities are great add-on rules for how your army is supposed to play, and while they are necessary for competitive games they are fluffy additions in and of themselves (well, other than Khorne’s completely anti-Khorne healing prayer).

[Dead Scribe]

I only play competitively.  Battletomes are a requirement for me and I don't like paying $50 for 3 or 4 pages out of the book that I care about.  I don't need anything from the book other than my faction specific rules and items.  I don't care about the art.  I don't care about the stories.  The warscrolls I can get for free from the app.  Literally $50 for 3 or 4 pages of rules.  

If they want to charge for rules then make gamer versions of the battletomes that are only the rules and charge a lot less for those.  

[Tropical Ghost General]

Would it be out of place to want to have a digital download if you buy the paper copy of the battletome/codex? So you can get all the updates, yet keep the nice book with the art and lore and stuff.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, Qaz said:

I believe it is or at least near-monopoly.

I can't claim to be a business law expert, but the idea of a monopoly was often floated when I worked at GW, and we were armed to be able to reply intelligently.

The simplified explanation is that monopolies are companies with no companies selling any similar product. As long as there are the (dozens of) other miniature way gaming companies out there, GW can't be a monopoly.

[Dead Scribe]

Its not technically a monopoly.

Culturally however, those dozens of other companies might as well not exist because culturally Games Workshop does have a monopoly in that people will play the game that other people are playing and that seems to be Games Workshop games.

[Sleboda]

Man, I just love it when people use "technically" to undermine a point. What it's usually standing in for is "actually." As in, GW is actually not a monopoly.

Also, when a term gets misappropriated to undermine a point that has been shown to be actually true. Verify that GW is not a monopoly? Ok, how about we move the goal posts a little?

That "cultural monopoly" that makes GW the overwhelming favorite in the miniature hobby game market is called, wait ... I'll remember it ... Oh yeah! It's called success.

Why do people feel a need to take shots at businesses who succeed so strongly against their competition? I'll never understand it.

 

With all the grumbling some GW customers do about GW, I often wonder why they remain GW customers. If I was that upset with a business, I would not give them my money, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't complain about them publicly. 

"Gosh dang, this company is bad, and their products are lame ... I just bought some more!"

[123lac]

26 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Man, I just love it when people use "technically" to undermine a point. What it's usually standing in for is "actually." As in, GW is actually not a monopoly.

Also, when a term gets misappropriated to undermine a point that has been shown to be actually true. Verify that GW is not a monopoly? Ok, how about we move the goal posts a little?

That "cultural monopoly" that makes GW the overwhelming favorite in the miniature hobby game market is called, wait ... I'll remember it ... Oh yeah! It's called success.

Why do people feel a need to take shots at businesses who succeed so strongly against their competition? I'll never understand it.

 

With all the grumbling some GW customers do about GW, I often wonder why they remain GW customers. If I was that upset with a business, I would not give them my money, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't complain about them publicly. 

"Gosh dang, this company is bad, and their products are lame ... I just bought some more!"

I mean I like the models. I don't like how they do the battle tomes.

We don't have to love all aspects of the business.

[Dead Scribe]

Let me be personally 100% honest here and say I don't play Age of Sigmar because I love the rules or the company.  I think the models are pretty cool.  But I primarily play it because thats what everyone else around me plays and part of that involves me having to take the things I don't like about the game or company on the chin.

[Kirjava13]

51 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Let me be personally 100% honest here and say I don't play Age of Sigmar because I love the rules or the company.  I think the models are pretty cool.  But I primarily play it because thats what everyone else around me plays and part of that involves me having to take the things I don't like about the game or company on the chin.

I was about to ask, because it seems like there is barely any aspect of this hobby that you actually enjoy.

[Overread]

Honestly sometimes you've got to bite the bullet and be like a PressGanger. Buy, build and paint two entry level forces for another game system you want to play and run an introduction event for it. Good models, good rules (with you having a sound understanding of them) coupled to a good table to play on and some aids (eg print out some leaflets on the different armies/factions ) etc.... You can market a game locally yourself if you're willing to put the energy into it. That's a big way in how Warmachine grew (and what left most people utterly stumped that PP would panic fire the whole PG system). Heck you could even drop the company an email and ask if they've any promotional material you could use.

 

You can fail, but you'll still finish it with two nice armies and models that you've enjoyed painting up and playing with. And who knows you might strike a chored with local players. Heck most people are lazy so even just taking the initiative to running a series of growth games (small growing to bigger) and organising events and matches can be enough to shift what is locally played or at least give a new game a chance .

 

Of course it can depend how big the club is; if it just 5 or so people its going to be harder than if its 50 members. 

[Dead Scribe]

1 hour ago, Kirjava13 said:

I was about to ask, because it seems like there is barely any aspect of this hobby that you actually enjoy.

I enjoy going to tournaments and meeting new people and competing and placing as high as I can.

[Yokai]

I hear you, OP. I pity the poor sod investing in Kharadron Overlords, only to find out most of the physical battletome has been invalidated by FAQs, rule reworks and whatnot. GW selling the old tome is borderline fraudulent.