GW on why customers buy Miniatures

[Reede]

See, I don't think this line of thinking is technically wrong, only inherently. I believe players that ALREADY are involved in 40k, have an army and enjoy will absolutely buy models based off of aesthetics. However, if you are looking to get into 40k or have become very disenfranchised with how the game is currently playing, then you aren't going to buy any models. Here's how I see it and I think (but can't confirm most certainly) a lot of players see it. If you don't have a good game to back up the pretty models, people aren't going to buy them.

[hutting7]

To be fair I'd say it was 50/50 for me, I mean I tend not to be too bothered by how the models look unless they're exceptional. So I'll start an army based upon one or two good looking models or the overall aesthetic, then I'll work out how to play that army and which units I'll need. If the models for those units are a bit dodgy or (mostly the case) overpriced then I'll use other models for them or ebay second hand versions of the models.
The only models where I've been "wow those are amazing, I'll pay the in-store price for them" in the last few years have been the Hellstriders of Slaanesh (who are sadly awful in the game but led to me making a Slaanesh army with older chaos models) and Tetto Eko for the Lizardmen (who was Finecast and resulted in hours of frustrated raging at the terrible build quality and swearing only to ever buy plastic haha).

[Bork]

i will absolutely not buy a miniature i do not like regardless of how good its rules are. i'll always seek to convert or scratch build if i really want to use that model.

on the flip side i absolutely will never buy a model i won't use in a game despite how amazing it looks. my budget does not extend to shelf candy miniatures i don't get any use out of.

it has to be a mix of aesthetics and good rules. one or the other doesn't get you the sale for me.

[Stone Edwards]

Yeah I have to agree with the others. I play the game just to have fun and as such I tend to buy models based on how they look. Granted I do break the trend sometimes, like when I bought warp spiders and jet bikes for my eldar, but it is the exception. I love how he acts all offended and surprised about all this. Seriously the people who only care about the rules and about competitive play are the minority, they just tend to scream the loudest so it is all you hear on the internet.

[Ghostofman]

I prefer cool looking models to ugly ones, but if it can't perform in my army, it's not getting bought.

I will say that my current feelings have a lot more to do with cost then they did in years past. If a box of centurions were about half what it is now, I might buy them for coolness, but at these prices, no way.

I think this is kinda the issue for me, just another example of how GW is trying to live in the past. For what it's worth, I get the feeling GW doesn't have the people and resources needed to adapt their business to the world of 2014, but that doesn't change that it needs to be done.

[Stone Edwards]

See, I don't think this line of thinking is technically wrong, only inherently. I believe players that ALREADY are involved in 40k, have an army and enjoy will absolutely buy models based off of aesthetics. However, if you are looking to get into 40k or have become very disenfranchised with how the game is currently playing, then you aren't going to buy any models. Here's how I see it and I think (but can't confirm most certainly) a lot of players see it. If you don't have a good game to back up the pretty models, people aren't going to buy them.

You may be right about someone who is disenfranchised (and honestly so many people who end up this way are so unreasonable there is no point trying to get them back) but I think you are completely wrong about new players. Buying cool looking **** is exactly how people get into the game. Do you honestly think that a newbie who has never played will really care that (to just take a random recent example) hive guard are now BS 3 instead of 4? Speaking from experience they will have no idea what those numbers mean, the only thing that would put them off is if some other jaded person at the store (or online) tells them.

[Johnnycache]

Ive been playing warhammer fantasy/40k for 25 years now, and i can honestly say that all my army purchases are based on what the figures look like. i dont mind if i lose games because 'in game' they are not very good, as long as i have a good time playing it. i have also been known not to put in a good unit because i dont like the figure. i find the painting side of the hobby more enjoyable than the playing, and this might explain my personal decisions. if others feel the same way GW might well be right

I've been playing long enough that I no longer chase the "flavor of the month" because there will probably be new rules for a fig eventually anyway, or something else in an army they can be used for...my current batch of Harbingers of the Void are all ex-paraiahs, for example. Rules come and go, your finished models stay in the world. Unless you sell them to a dipstick who simple greens them and repaints them with gloss testor's paint, then you just cry inside

[Wildeybeast]

I look at it like this. Is someone going to buy an awesome model with terrible rules? Well, yes. People like to paint them and many people will persevere with playing them simply for the models. Will people buy an absolutely awful model when it has good rules? I'd say that is less likely. I don't know anyone who would be willing to field, say, dark elf harpies.

However, I think we are getting to hung up the polar opposites here. They deliberately make awesome models, that is their prime goal. But they don't deliberately set out to write bad rules. Sure, sometimes they are unbalanced, over/under powered/costed or just badly worded, but those are the exceptions rather than the rules. Can anyone actually name a unit which has an awesome model but utterly terrible rules? Or terrible models but awesome rules? I can think of any.

All this is is GW saying what they have always said, they are first and foremost a miniatures company and that should be their driving goal. People are always going to moan about the rules but I hear very few people moaning about models these days.

[Kibbles Lil-Bit]

I tend to buy based on the look of the model. In my personal opinion, I would never buy Centurions because, to me, they are awful.
Then sometimes, along comes a model/unit that just makes you go Wow! This first happened to me when the Ushabti were released. In my mind no other figure came close to capturing the essence of an army.
I generally paint first, game second, having no friends who are into the hobby, so the models need to be good enough for me to buy.

[Lord Tothe]

Cool-looking models were the reason I even considered 40K in the first place. If I don't like a model, I'll see whether I can kitbash something more to my liking, or get a 3rd party proxy. I plan to try an Ork Deff Dred by digging out my Legos and building one that way, because why not? GW prices are outrageous, as many have said, and I can't drop $40+ on a single model whether I need it for my army, or I want to paint it just because. There are a lot of GW vehicles I would want to buy, build, and paint as they are, and maybe use them as looted wagons without any Orky mods, but I can't possibly afford to.