|
Maybe this should be the Infinity/Warmahordes Death Pool, as they demand you use exclusively their models at their events.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:Maybe this should be the Infinity/Warmahordes Death Pool, as they demand you use exclusively their models at their events. Oh poo poo! No shirt, no shoes, no service motherfuckers! War foot laying it out. Company-exclusive mini conventions; The New Jim Crow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:Maybe this should be the Infinity/Warmahordes Death Pool, as they demand you use exclusively their models at their events. That depends, are they also busily demanding bloggers take down leaked preview images, shafting independent retailers, and releasing financial report preambles that look like they were written by Col. Kurtz? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:That depends, are they also busily demanding bloggers take down leaked preview images, shafting independent retailers, and releasing financial report preambles that look like they were written by Col. Kurtz? Nah, just trying to illustrate that 'requesting you use our models in our store/at our event' is not such a bad thing. TheCosmicMuffet posted:Oh poo poo! Warhammer players to the back of the bus, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Seriously there's nothing wrong with that. Stop complaining about GW not wanting to have non-GW stuff on display at their store. It's a really dumb complaint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I can see drawing the line at bootleg army or rule books, but this is pretty moot since next to no GW gaming happens where anyone will enforce this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
E: ^^^that tooS.J. posted:Seriously there's nothing wrong with that. Stop complaining about GW not wanting to have non-GW stuff on display at their store. It's a really dumb complaint. GW certainly would never want to display any non-GW products, like that time Paul Sawyer wasn't shown in the pages of WD not using non-GW paints. And he definitely didn't have a Tamiya catalog next to him, no sir. (e2: and that wasn't in the pre-"THERE IS ONLY GW" days, either. IIRC Sawyer's tenure as WD editor began well after WD had been transformed into a GW-products-only house organ) (in all honesty I don't actually have an issue with GW wanting GW-only models or whatever at their games, that's a policy I think is fairly understandable. It's just that when taken in context of them basically wanting absolute control over all aspects of their particular piece of the wargaming pie, it tends to just feed into the overall "GW is run by a bunch of control freaks" narrative) Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
You're absolutely right it does. I don't even think it's a great idea. But it is certainly a silly thing to complain about, and that's coming from someone who can't loving stand that company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You're absolutely right it does. I don't even think it's a great idea. But it is certainly a silly thing to complain about. Eh, in my case it's more just another tweaking of the nose of the clown college that is present-day Games Workshop. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:That depends, are they also busily demanding bloggers take down leaked preview images Hang on, GW don't know that the internet exists outside of their 4 million pound website (that still can't auto-detect that I live in  ).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:Hang on, GW don't know that the internet exists outside of their 4 million pound website (that still can't auto-detect that I live in Of course not, they don't faff around with things like "market research"!  Also GW is a company that really does its' damndest to exemplify the "Streisand Effect".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:Hang on, GW don't know that the internet exists outside of their 4 million pound website (that still can't auto-detect that I live in Australian IP addresses, are all values of n^1.38 of normal IP addresses, and are impossible to track. Or send packets to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:Australian IP addresses, are all values of n^1.38 of normal IP addresses, and are impossible to track. Or send packets to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
It's not a net awesome thing for a company to do, but it's the sort of thing that'd be like "okay, that's eminently reasonable" if done by a company that wasn't already hated. E.g., as people have said, Privateer Press. Also, Privateer Press actually has a relatively lenient policy when it comes to conversions. IIRC, it just says "a majority" of the parts have to be from the original model, and the resulting mini must be clearly identifiable as the original mini and represent its equipment accurately. So I'm guessing you could use the WMH equivalent of headswaps or custom shoulderpads without too much trouble. There aren't companies like Anvil and Scibor making complete substitute models, but part of the reason for that is probably because PP doesn't drive their customers into the arms of third-party makers, unlike GW. HiveCommander posted:Hang on, GW don't know that the internet exists outside of their 4 million pound website (that still can't auto-detect that I live in Hey now, it was actually only 1 million pounds, the rest of that figure turned out to be them trying to hide other expenses or losses or something. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Hey now, it was actually only 1 million pounds, the rest of that figure turned out to be them trying to hide other expenses or losses or something. Yeah, I think it was mentioned that what they did was roll all the costs of paying out severance packages for the people they let go (along with other costs/losses) into that £4 million figure. It's just that Kirby's rambling preamble was so poorly-worded that it came across like "We spent £4,000,000 on redesigning our website!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Yeah, I think it was mentioned that what they did was roll all the costs of paying out severance packages for the people they let go (along with other costs/losses) into that £4 million figure. It's just that Kirby's rambling preamble was so poorly-worded that it came across like "We spent £4,000,000 on redesigning our website!" No, Kirby explicity stated that the new website cost them 4 million pounds. It wasn't an easily misinterpretated statement or anything, it was exactly how he said it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:No, Kirby explicity stated that the new website cost them 4 million pounds. It wasn't an easily misinterpretated statement or anything, it was exactly how he said it. It's been a while since I read the report, do you happen to have the quote handy? Because I remember there was much foofawraw ITT (and on other forums) about how it was silly to claim the website cost them four million quid, obviously it was other costs rolled in. Not saying anyone's lying/wrong one way or t'other, just that I don't remember the exact wording offhand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I share the recollection that Kirby unambigiously worded it so that he appeared to be saying that the website redesign cost them 4 million pounds; but IIRC this was shown to be nonfactual and it was just Kirby's atrocious skill at communication. So you'd both be right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:It's been a while since I read the report, do you happen to have the quote handy? Because I remember there was much foofawraw ITT (and on other forums) about how it was silly to claim the website cost them four million quid, obviously it was other costs rolled in. Here it is, second page. The whole paragraph so it isn't taken out of context: "All this has significantly de-risked the business. We have far fewer key personnel to replace if need be, and a much lower cost base (£2 million p.a. less). It has cost, in total, around £4.5 million to accomplish. The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It cost around £4 million. "
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:Here it is, second page. Thanks for that, I must not have grasped that fully at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
I think both Flames of War and Malifaux are mostly lenient as far as other companies minis go. Both let you use other companies miniatures in official tournaments as long as you let the TO have a quick once over of the mini's before hand to make sure they are reasonable, but if you use other companies minis your army can't be in any official company photos or promotional materials. I don't think Warlord or By Fire and Sword really care either but I don't know much about the official scenes for those games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
To be fair, I can perfectly understand why GW (or any other games company that makes both minis and the games to use them in) would want only their products to be seen/used in "official" things like company-sponsored tourneys, stuff taking place at their branded locations/stores, etc. etc. At the end of the day they are in the business of promoting their own products, after all. It's just that (as I said before), given their brute force approach in trying to control all the other aspects of their particular place in the wargaming hobby world, the "guy gets kicked out for using Mantic minis at a GW event" story comes across as just another example of GW being jerks (even though in this case I would actually side with 'em and say they were justified in doing so).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
I think the most confusing thing is that it's fairly public knowledge that GW stores require GW product. I've seen them be quite lenient on paints, brushes and other hobby supplies, but miniatures is where they draw the line. Going into a GW store with a Mantic army and kicking up a stink when they ask you to remove seems like they were just spoiling for confrontation so as to be able to go "GAMES WORKSHOP AMIRITE GUYZ?!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:I think the most confusing thing is that it's fairly public knowledge that GW stores require GW product. I've seen them be quite lenient on paints, brushes and other hobby supplies, but miniatures is where they draw the line. Kicking someone out of the store for not using their terribly overpriced brushes, clippers and hobby drills would be really dumb. Their brushes aren't even that good in the first place. I mean you can make an argument about the detail on their (non-Finecast) miniatures for their price, but not the other hobby accessories. gently caress paying $32AUD for a pair of fine detail cutters or $29AUD for a hobby drill. I bought my pair of sprue clips from a hardware store for about $5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Strangely enough, GW brushes are the cheapest brushes we stock at my store. Also, though I agree on most their brushes being awful, their Small/Medium drybrushes are some of the best around. (As for clippers and hobby tools, though, they are shamelessly gouging. The face that Privateer Press clippers are half the price is pretty telling for like the same product.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:Strangely enough, GW brushes are the cheapest brushes we stock at my store. GW brushes being cheap is actually perfectly logical because they aren't any great shakes. I mean they're functional but you're not talking kolinsky sable here. It's only surprising because you would expect GW to go ahead and mark them up right past a W&N S7.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
I never understood why people bought terrible GW or army painter or any other brand brushes that you saw in a hobby shop. All art stores carry WNS7 and the ones I've visited have always priced them competitively against online prices. Why buy a bad $8 brush when the WNS7 can be had for $10?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I never understood why people bought terrible GW or army painter or any other brand brushes that you saw in a hobby shop. All art stores carry WNS7 and the ones I've visited have always priced them competitively against online prices. Why buy a bad $8 brush when the WNS7 can be had for $10? because it's branded and you're like 14 and internet doesn't exist and your mom's time is too precious for car trips to multiple stores.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Wrong thread. But never buy anything branded for our hobby, because the same stuff usually exists somewhere without a 300% markup. Gareth Gobulcoque fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
I buy entire packs of Revell brushes for like €5 but I treat my brushes like poo poo so
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:Here it is, second page. Except heres the bit that matters, directly from the Financial report and not the barmy statement. quote:We invested in shop fits: 44 new stores and 4 refurbishments. We invested an additional £0.9 million in the new web store and £2.6 million in tooling, and milling and injection moulding machines. Capital investment is expected to be higher than This has been pointed out to you before and you continue to ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Except heres the bit that matters, directly from the Financial report and not the barmy statement. Oh god! A whole page was reached without you stepping into defend Games Workshops honour! The preamble was released/leaked before the report and said the website cost £4m. Your "bit that matters" wasn't released until after the pre-amble so yeah - people reading the preamble first and coming away with the impression that it cost £4m is pretty reasonable, genius. In general, people reading the preamble as a summary and not the entire 16 page report is also entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
The only thing I need to know from the preamble is that 1. GW is hosed, and 2. Kirby's an idiot. Also that I have zero confidence that the culture that caused condition #1 is going to be even the slightest bit lessened by the removal of condition #2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Daedleh posted:Oh god! A whole page was reached without you stepping into defend Games Workshops honour! My bit that matters is the financial statement not a statement by a chairman who is clearly so divorced from reality he's getting the boot. My issue is that this has been pointed out, multiple times, by multiple other posters, but it doesnt sound as good so the £4 million thing persists. Much like numerous other 'facts' about GW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I never understood why people bought terrible GW or army painter or any other brand brushes that you saw in a hobby shop. All art stores carry WNS7 and the ones I've visited have always priced them competitively against online prices. Why buy a bad $8 brush when the WNS7 can be had for $10? I like the GW drybrushes, someone please find me an equivalent so I don't have to keep giving them money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:I like the GW drybrushes, someone please find me an equivalent so I don't have to keep giving them money. GW Drybrushes are seriously some of the best around for their price. Coarse, short hairs on the cheapest brush in their range is quite excellent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:I like the GW drybrushes, someone please find me an equivalent so I don't have to keep giving them money. Vallejo did some flat/rectangular brushes which I found pretty decent for drybrushing with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:GW Drybrushes are seriously some of the best around for their price. Coarse, short hairs on the cheapest brush in their range is quite excellent. GW drybrushes are the only brushes they make. Even the ones labled "Standard brush" are such dogshit as to be unusable for any other task.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:My bit that matters is the financial statement not a statement by a chairman who is clearly so divorced from reality he's getting the boot. yeah but did you consider that gently caress you????
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Except heres the bit that matters, directly from the Financial report and not the barmy statement. The discussion was about how the statement was barmy and contradicted by the report though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:28
|
|
