Rules vs. Good Design Selling Models - How can Consumers influence GW?

[Phasteon]

50 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I'm pretty ambivalent about OBR but willing to back your point as else you'll get gangbanged here for criticizing something others like.  To tell you the truth I haven't seen another faction that divides AoS fans as much as the OBR do. It's fair to say that something about their design irks a lot people and most other factions had fewer "haters". I think about something quite unusual like KO  for example - lots of people wouldn't collect them I guess but those that won't are more ambivalent about their dislike for them than say OBR.

Personally I don't mind the noses or faces, I think their armor is too busy (so carapace-like) which simply doesn't look good in combination with the fused bone-construct look IMO as it makes it very busy. I would say they're objectively ugly and I won't feel bad about it - they're kinda meant to be. Most dudes in my army (Tzeentch) are ugly as sin as well and I'm cool with that fact and if someone else tells me that my heroes won't win any beauty pageants. What I think can't be said about them is that they're all bad models. For me personally, due to the IMO mismatched aesthetic they're not good models but from a technical POV they probably are decent models.

 

The correct term following your logic then would be, subjectively ugly. In your opinion they have a mismatched aesthetic as you said yourself, so why are you still claiming that you are objectively judging when there are obviously people (again, you said the players are divided on that topic) who think the models are totally fine. 

Also he wasnt „gangbanged“* as you said because he said the models are ugly btw. ,but because he connected his personal taste of the looks of the models with GWs selling strategy by compensating for the looks with OP rules, which is nonsense as pointed out, because the models cant be called „objectively ugly“. You said yourself that from a technical POV they are decent, thats a point where you could judge objectively. 

And to the point „they are meant to be ugly“ yeah sure, troggoths and ogors are intended to look ugly as well, but that was clearly not @Dokos point when calling them ugly. 

*it was not even him but his nonsense argument.

[MitGas]

14 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

The correct term following your logic then would be, subjectively ugly. In your opinion they have a mismatched aesthetic as you said yourself, so why are you still claiming that you are objectively judging when there are obviously people (again, you said the players are divided on that topic) who think the models are totally fine. 

Also he wasnt „gangbanged“* as you said because he said the models are ugly btw. ,but because he connected his personal taste of the looks of the models with GWs selling strategy by compensating for the looks with OP rules, which is nonsense as pointed out, because the models cant be called „objectively ugly“. You said yourself that from a technical POV they are decent, thats a point where you could judge objectively. 

And to the point „they are meant to be ugly“ yeah sure, troggoths and ogors are intended to look ugly as well, but that was clearly not @Dokos point when calling them ugly. 

*it was not even him but his nonsense argument.

Sorry but no - an unnatural fusion of bones is objectively ugly. Kinda like multiple eyes would be. It's objectively ugly to our sense of aesthetics as humans. You can still like it though.

The mismatched aesthetics is entirely objective as well. Those design elements don't compliment themselves in a natural fashion as basically two design concepts fight each other for attention on these.

All of that has nothing to do with liking or disliking them however. I like e.g. Tekken 3's Yoshimitsu design who shares a lot of similarities with these but is he objectively handsome? Hell no.

Do I think that he's a better design than OBRs? Yes, cause he's got the fused bone look but his clothing/armor works better with it than the armor of the OBR models - now that is mostly subjective although from an objective POV there's also some merit to it like hinted above - they are a bit overdesigned and their segregated armor distracts from the bone-fusion look. It's simply too much at that scale. Nothing a proper paintjob wouldn't fix though, to bring those minis the focus needed - I think the studio's colors did do them a bit of a disservice.

I like Tzeentch stuff. But the Gaunt Summoner e.g. is an ugly ****** with a mismatched aesthetic (3 arms and the like...). Which is cool in my book. I don't expect others to find him good from a design or technical POV. The OBR just stick out to people more than him for whatever reason, at least from what I've seen online. I believe a big part of the reason is that lots of people maybe wanted something more classical (TKs and/or classic new undead like the warband in Shadespire). It's obvious that from a technical POV the models are decent but almost every single new sculpt is, whether we like it or not.

it's fair to say that the OBR had a harder time pleasing everyone interested than say the Gaunt Summoner who was made for a much, much, MUCH smaller group of people.

I seriously think that's simple truth - they made something new and unique and I fully believe lots of people wanted something more traditional - they instantly lost that crowd and then they're quite overdesigned (especially for that scale) which makes some others not like them as much as they else would. None of those are reasons for you to not love them and find them better than everything else though. 

At least they're better than the goofy pink horrors!

 

[Phasteon]

10 minutes ago, MitGas said:

At least they're better than the goofy pink horrors!

 

Fully agree on that! Hmm and they got some decent rules 🤔

 

[RuneBrush]

On 1/25/2020 at 1:54 AM, Nighthaunt Noob said:

Seeing the new Lumineth models shown so far, I can't help but resurface something I noticed with OBR: Good rules sell models, so much so that people even change their tune about the models.

With OBR, they were highly controversial when first released. Much of the criticism on their look faded after their release. In fact, Katakros was one of the highest voted models for "best model of the year", despite a fairly lukewarm reception initially.

I'm not convinced it's quite as straightforward as this for a number of reasons.  First and foremost when people first see a photo, it rarely portrays how good the miniature is - Bonereapers even more so as the first photo's were "potato pictures" and really poor quality.  This initial photo causes a small but very loud group of people to rage about how awful the miniatures are in every online media available.  Once the models get released and people start seeing them in the flesh what generally then happens is either those vocal folk change their mind or realise that they're now in the minority so shut up (having had their five minutes of publicity).  This is normally reinforced by somebody getting hold of the model, doing a completely different paint job and posting photos online.  In the case of Katakros, my own view was that the miniature was relatively well received in the social media circles I follow/participate in.

Now don't get me wrong, rules certainly influence some people's purchasing, however I think the impression that most people play competitively and super focused on the rules isn't correct.  I think there are far more people who purchase models because they like the look of them rather than because of the rules.

[Beastmaster]

If you consider how much more time and effort goes into planning, building, painting, handling and looking at the miniatures, compared to actually playing the game for the average hobbyist, it’s quite clear that only a small minority would even consider starting an army they don’t like the looks of .

[zilberfrid]

3 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

If you consider how much more time and effort goes into planning, building, painting, handling and looking at the miniatures, compared to actually playing the game for the average hobbyist, it’s quite clear that only a small minority would even consider starting an army they don’t like the looks of .

As seen on Reddit, MANY* ask about rules first.

They don't know any better, there is this game, and they want to play it. Asking about rules is a good idea. They do not know about the percentage of time looking at models compared to playing the game.

Now, in AoS, we see a relatively nice balance, and FotM do not extend many years. Going model first is not a bad idea.

This was a lot different in WHFB and to a lesser extent still in 40k. Going rules first there was/is a good idea.

 

* I myself just wanted to paint models, and it's nice that there was a game along with it. Others like me would also just get the models they like the look of, and will not ask as many questions, so there is a bias there.

[Overread]

Just remember:

1) The online community that is active and talking is tiny compared to the real world market. Even in computer games, where you can easily see on Steam that a game might have hundreds of thousands of buyers and thousands of active players at once; where registration on the steam forums is automatic - you still only get a modest number engaging in conversation and asking questions about the game prior to purchase. And that's a community where you're already signed up and funnelled toward the info. Wargames are much the same - for every one new person just starting out on the AoS forums or Facebook there are many many more in the real world starting out. 

So whilst online chatter can represent some portion of the real world population, it isn't the majority. You can bet there's many who go into a GW store (or 3rd party) and all their info comes from the displaycase, the model box, whoever was around playing a game at the time and the store staff. So basically not really any good sources of a sudden indepth guide into the strategic side of the game. 

 

2) No army is universally liked by everyone. Add to that the internet is a bit of a negative echobox at times. The result is that sometimes something can appear less popular than it really is, because its the nay-sayers who are commenting more than those who like something. I also second Rune's point that there's a big difference between seeing product photos and seeing an actual real model. Furthermore different angles also help out a lot. Sometimes those home camera shots of a whole army on display against another can show things that GW product photos fail to show. For example relative scale to more variety of models which can make a model that looks "so so big" in product shots; suddenly show off its full size. 

There's also different angles; different creative takes with painting and even posing and converting etc... There's loads of things that can change an initial impression of an army. 

[Death1942]

OBR and the new elves in my opinion suffer from a poor colour scheme from GW.  I just went to a big tournament with a huge amount of OBR lists and most of those armies looked great because they didn't paint them like the standard scheme.

The only thing that irks me from a GW standpoint is when they tend to bump the rules up on fresh models (OBR) compared to new rules on older kits (Ogres).  Now this isn't a hard and fast rule but there is certainly a trend.  Aside from RnD costs and machining costs I really don't understand why selling a box of OBR foot troops is any different to selling a beasts of chaos foot troops box.  GW has already invested the money into manufacturing both kits so why should they care if someone walks in a buys the older kit?  This is why they should aim to have a well balanced game and to refresh armies regularly, they have all those old inventory that needs to shift along with the new kits.

[Dead Scribe]

I would think by now if rules quality mattered that GW would have long gone out of business.  I don't think rules quality really matters to the masses.  And anytime rules discussions come up on balance or rules quality or the rules in general, its always torn between a small but very vocal group of people that hate the rules, a group of people like me that realize the rules aren't very good but simply don't care as much and know how to take advantage of the bad rules to our advantage for competitive play, and a larger pool of people that either don't play or play very casually where their group rule is to take care of itself and expel people from the group that take advantage of the poor rules.

There are just too many people that ultimately don't care about the rules quality enough where you will see any change by GW to put good rules out.  If you want good rules there are other games that focus on rules first.  Also note, that those games either have no one playing them or its very niche, whereas GW with all of its "bad rules" dominates almost every market.  

That has to say something to most people. 

[Beastmaster]

I’m quite sure that GW knows its target customers better than any of us here. They have the Sales numbers, the access  to modern marketing research tools with a genuine interest to use them, and they have watched the market for decades. Not to say they don’t make mistakes, but, all in all, they should know by now what most customers want from their products.

Bearing this in mind it seems that most GW customers are really more interested in cool looking armies that play very differently, all with their own special rules, units, Artefacts etc, even if that means that they are inherently almost impossible to be ever truly balanced.

[Sleboda]

22 hours ago, MitGas said:

Sorry but no - an unnatural fusion of bones is objectively ugly. Kinda like multiple eyes would be. It's objectively ugly to our sense of aesthetics as humans.

Not even a little bit true.

[Kramer]

22 hours ago, MitGas said:

Sorry but no - an unnatural fusion of bones is objectively ugly. Kinda like multiple eyes would be. It's objectively ugly to our sense of aesthetics as humans. You can still like it though.

The designer in total recal who decided on the three breasted lady would like a word with you  

[MitGas]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Not even a little bit true.

Then I can only suggest you to read a book on that topic as all scientific evidence points against your non-argument. There's a reason why most people find a hamster cute but not a spider. There's a reason why you'd find someone with abnormalities not exactly beautiful to behold. If you speak German I could suggest you a couple of books, most of them having to do with the topic where disgust comes from. In the end, much like with beauty, there are a couple of constants what's disgusting, pleasant, ugly or whatever else...

[MitGas]

2 minutes ago, Kramer said:

The designer in total recal who decided on the three breasted lady would like a word with you  

I know it's a joke but I'd be willing to bet good money that said woman would get surgery to remove her third breast if it was real. We strive to belong. Why else would most people want to change tiny imperfections? The media isn't helping for sure but the basic reason has been a constant. 

[Sleboda]

5 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Then I can only suggest you to read a book on that topic as all scientific evidence points against your non-argument.

Ugly, by definition, is subjective. Period. End of story.

[Beastmaster]

3 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Then I can only suggest you to read a book on that topic as all scientific evidence points against your non-argument. There's a reason why most people find a hamster cute but not a spider. There's a reason why you'd find someone with abnormalities not exactly beautiful to behold. If you speak German I could suggest you a couple of books, most of them having to do with the topic where disgust comes from. In the end, much like with beauty, there are a couple of constants what's disgusting, pleasant, ugly or whatever else...

You can see it that way. The big blind spot in this seems to me that we constantly underestimate the fascination for ugly and disgusting, and how widespread that fascination is.

Or why do people enjoy horror so much?

ps. Do you, by chance, know „Ästhetik des Horrors“ from H. Brittnacher? 😉

[plavski]

No-one in my gaming club thinks the Teclis model is bad and none of them engage with the online debate except me  The vast majority of players are unrepresented online so I would be super careful about making sweeping generalisations using online complaints to back up arguments.

[MitGas]

3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Ugly, by definition, is subjective. Period. End of story.

No. Read a book on that topic. End of discussion. I'm not gonna post some ugly pictures of unfortunate people or whatever here to prove you wrong although it would be hella easy. And even if you found one person that thought otherwise, it wouldn't change a basic fact.

[MitGas]

3 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

You can see it that way. The big blind spot in this seems to me that we constantly underestimate the fascination for ugly and disgusting, and how widespread that fascination is.

Or why do people enjoy horror so much?

ps. Do you, by chance, know „Ästhetik des Horrors“ from H. Brittnacher? 😉

No, that book I unfortunately didn't come across but thanks for the hint. Might've been helpful all those years ago!

[Kramer]

11 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I know it's a joke but I'd be willing to bet good money that said woman would get surgery to remove her third breast if it was real. We strive to belong. Why else would most people want to change tiny imperfections? The media isn't helping for sure but the basic reason has been a constant. 

Well if you want to push the argument to the end of the line... only until it’s seen as the peak of beauty. Imperfections are interesting and become beautiful. 
There is a reason why the one mole on the cheek was a sign of beauty once. 
there is a reason why fashion photographers focus on little imperfections instead of photoshopping it all away. They do photoshop, but it’s removing the pimples and things that disappear over time. Not the slightly crooked nose (According to a few fashion photographers I work with )

So as long as three breasted is the peak of beauty. No most people would consider themselves lucky in that case. With the current cultural view on beauty, yes very likely.

But in the end I haven’t read the books and theory’s you allude to but haven’t named. So the conversation is a bit moot. Not to mention it’s a fantasy setting. Who cares? The lore could be this is the peak of elven beauty. 
Sorry usually love to discuss but it’s a irrelevant issue regarding AoS imo. 

[MitGas]

3 minutes ago, plavski said:

No-one in my gaming club thinks the Teclis model is bad and none of them engage with the online debate except me  The vast majority of players are unrepresented online so I would be super careful about making sweeping generalisations using online complaints to back up arguments.

I don't think Teclis is the subject here.  It's basically about if something can be classified as ugly per se. I argue that we as humans have some common conceptions about beauty (and ugliness) and others disagree. Which is ludicrous as many researchers already disproved "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Hell, even when you think about something as narrow facial aesthetics in humans there are various common markers. No matter where people come from. Those are universal things.

[MitGas]

1 minute ago, Kramer said:

There is a reason why the one mole on the cheek was a sign of beauty once. 

The reason for a beauty spot is that it directs your eyes to a physical marker you actually care about (usually in a sexual way) - for example their eyes and/or mouth.

Let's say this little, cute mole was a huge, irregular wart with hairs coming out of it. Only a fool would argue that anyone (except for maybe someone with perverse taste, which is - as the true meaning of the word perverse - unnatural/uncommon) would find said wart beautiful by itself. But whatever.

[Gecktron]

2 hours ago, Death1942 said:

The only thing that irks me from a GW standpoint is when they tend to bump the rules up on fresh models (OBR) compared to new rules on older kits (Ogres). 

Idoneth Deepkin, Fyreslayers, Kharadron Overlords and Nighthaunts would like to disagree, so do Daughters of Khaine and Flesh-Eater courts. 

[SwampHeart]

1 minute ago, Gecktron said:

Idoneth Deepkin, Fyreslayers, Kharadron Overlords and Nighthaunts would like to disagree, so do Daughters of Khaine and Flesh-Eater courts. 

Shhh! That's counter intuitive to the narrative that GW intentionally overpowers armies to make sales and then nerfs them. No one wants to hear all that. 

 

Spoiler

I'm being sarcastic and I agree with you 100%.

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by SwampHeart

[Gecktron]

11 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I don't think Teclis is the subject here.  It's basically about if something can be classified as ugly per se. I argue that we as humans have some common conceptions about beauty (and ugliness) and others disagree. Which is ludicrous as many researchers already disproved "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Hell, even when you think about something as narrow facial aesthetics in humans there are various common markers. No matter where people come from. Those are universal things.

This is a miniature game. Where "ugly"  is definend by vastly different characteristics. 

People dont want to make love to a bone construct or a ghoul. They want some cool miniatures that are fun to paint and look good on the battlefield. 

And the Ossiarch Bonereapers succed in that.