Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
You mean 'Not a GW or FW model titan'?

Now how could somebody miss a direct statement?

No reading between the lines needed.

The Auld Grump

Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.

Let's remember that DakkaDakka rules do not allow advocating recasters. Substitution of alternative legitimate models is absolutely fine, of course.

 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.

I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.

 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.

I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!

 notprop wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.

I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.

Indeed, I was thinking it odd that people were suggesting AoS failed to represent blocks of hundreds of troops, whereas fantasy could.... Neither game uses units this big! 100 really was the upper limit for a horde unit under 8th, and even that was pushing it!

Warmaster better represents the level of engagement people describe TW:Wh as having, surely?

 Talys wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.

I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!

Or if you just don't think GW's models are all that good anymore

I'll admit that I have considered making 40k armies out of Dreamforge or Anvil Industries models before, or a Fantasy army out of Raging Heroes models. Probably would have if I still actually enjoyed 40k or if WHFB was still a thing.

 Talys wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.

I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!

I was working on a Guard army made entirely from non-GW figures and models when I gave up the game due to rules changes. Because I like making variation armies, I dislike the official models and also found them too expensive.

I know of a few people who used 'converted' imperial guard, simply to save themselves a ton of cash.And some of them did not like the GW models 'art style either.
Art style is subjective, if you like it or not is purely down to your opinion .

If using an alternative source for minatures means some one can play a game with their friends, with the other option being they can not afford to play.Then it is obvious why people use alternative sources.
Wealth is finite, if you can not afford something you find alternatives or go without.

@kilkrazy & jonolikespie - What your describing is kind of what I mean. At some point, unless you really love the game, but want other models, building an entire 40k army of non-GW models is just a project asking to be abandoned.

The models, the rules, and even the meta changes so abruptly that one year you'd be making almost-razorbacks and the next you'd be making almost-drop pods, then almost-Knights and another you'd be making almost-Centurions. A new supplement, and all of the sudden, things like Plasma on Stormravens which were nonexistent become a thing. A new FAQ and... Well, you get the idea

There are people (like me) who are excited for that new model, or even an excuse to retool or build another old model, and in that context, it's all good. And in that case, the buying GW models makes sense. And building occasional substitutes, especially for a bad model, can be really cool. But if you don't like that sort of thing, and just want substitutes (whether because you think that ALL the models are cooler or it's cheaper) I just kinda imagine that continuously looking for substitutes would drive me nuts.

Hence, I was saying, if it were me.. I'd just use cardboard on bases if I wanted to play the game, or, more likely, just play something else.

@Lanrak - all my first games of 40k were without GW models (many games over many months). But back then, they were all models on 25mm bases, too. It's just such a different game now, focused on much bigger and more varied models that I imagine it'd be so frustrating to endlessly find substitutes that were suitable.

But to each their own; those who can manage that in today's 40k definitely have my respect

In my view, as long as a model represents accurately (with some degree of flexibility, we're talking about 30mm models after all) what it's supposed to represent, I could care less where it came from.

This niche market is getting more and more crowded with new companies every passing day. We're living in a truly new golden age for 28mm scale models. Virtually everyone offers a better price/quality ratio than GW's. If someone wants to build certain armies, GW has become literally the worst option to go for. For a long time I've had a project about building a medium sized Dogs of War army, for playing WHFB, KoW or similar regiment-based games. I already have some models from the WHFB 6th edition starting box around, and when I look for affordable options towards expanding it...

If I go GW, 20€ get me 10 ape-looking imperial infantrymen.

If I go Perrys, for a bit more (around 25€) I get 40 infantrymen out of their XV century european mercenaries kit (usually built as 20 pikemen, 10 crossbowmen and 10 arquebusiers).

And the Perry models actually look way better than the GW monkeys.

The difference in price/quality is simply obscene. GW simply can't expect to compete in a growing market with prices like that. They're out of the loop. In the long run, they either change their pricing policies or they won't survive. I'd even go as far as saying they're mostly keeping afloat for now because the competition is yet to deliver decent looking space marines-lookalikes for a decent price. And even that could begin to change soon.

 Talys wrote:
At some point, unless you really love the game, but want other models, building an entire 40k army of non-GW models is just a project asking to be abandoned.

That entirely depends on what sort of army you would be building. I always build armies with a very strong 'core', in other words basic infantry, and that sort of thing is easy to find alternatives for. Of course if you want to make armies out of all the ridiculous things that GW keeps attempting to crowbar into a skirmish game then you may well have a problem but its not insurmountable given the likes of Kromlech et al.

I was planning on building a 40K army out of Heer Grenadiers when I gave up on 40k and I was half way through an Empire army made entirely out of Perry War of the Roses stuff when 8th hit and destroyed my remaining interest in Warhammer. I am even toying with the idea of making a 2nd ed Ork army out of the Kromlech Orks.

nareik wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.

I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.

Indeed, I was thinking it odd that people were suggesting AoS failed to represent blocks of hundreds of troops, whereas fantasy could.... Neither game uses units this big! 100 really was the upper limit for a horde unit under 8th, and even that was pushing it!

Warmaster better represents the level of engagement people describe TW:Wh as having, surely?

I agree, 28mm can't really represent TW accurately, you would need to go smaller. I was suggesting AoS as an alternative to WHFB because neither game really captures the feeling of TW but either could be played if you mainly cared about using the models from the video game.

 Korinov wrote:
In my view, as long as a model represents accurately (with some degree of flexibility, we're talking about 30mm models after all) what it's supposed to represent, I could care less where it came from.

This niche market is getting more and more crowded with new companies every passing day. We're living in a truly new golden age for 28mm scale models. Virtually everyone offers a better price/quality ratio than GW's. If someone wants to build certain armies, GW has become literally the worst option to go for. For a long time I've had a project about building a medium sized Dogs of War army, for playing WHFB, KoW or similar regiment-based games. I already have some models from the WHFB 6th edition starting box around, and when I look for affordable options towards expanding it...

If I go GW, 20€ get me 10 ape-looking imperial infantrymen.

If I go Perrys, for a bit more (around 25€) I get 40 infantrymen out of their XV century european mercenaries kit (usually built as 20 pikemen, 10 crossbowmen and 10 arquebusiers).

And the Perry models actually look way better than the GW monkeys.

The difference in price/quality is simply obscene. GW simply can't expect to compete in a growing market with prices like that. They're out of the loop. In the long run, they either change their pricing policies or they won't survive. I'd even go as far as saying they're mostly keeping afloat for now because the competition is yet to deliver decent looking space marines-lookalikes for a decent price. And even that could begin to change soon.

Historical models are indeed both cheaper and better looking than old GW Empire models... Which is why GW scrapped their almost-historical armies (Empire and Brettonia). Sci-Fi and Fantasy HIPS models are generally not that much cheaper than GW (and remember that most GW kits are multi-kits, which is a huge advantage for kit-bashers and converters like me). Mantic maybe, but their sculpt quality is inconsistent at best. Other ranges that were cheaper (Dreamforge, Wargames Factory) have been forced to raise their prices. Still cheaper, but not even close to historicals, which have the advantage of having all the concept work and "fluff" for free...

Some GW kits are quite absurdly priced (Fyreslayers 5-pack is insane for five dwarf-sized models) but that is not really the norm. Tactical Marines, Skitarii, and other modern and great-looking kits are fine, not to mention the reboxed AoS kits which mostly have gone down in price per model, and the Start Collecting kits.

@Mymearan.
What did you mean by..''Still cheaper, but not even close to historicals, which have the advantage of having all the concept work and "fluff" for free...''

I will think you will find the amount of effort and research that goes into making a scale replica of an actual historical unit is just as complex and time consuming.Just in a slightly different way to fictional units.(Historical gamers can be quite exacting over accuracy of models. )

Historical minatures tend to be cheaper as they can be used with many rule sets, and so there are more manufacturers of historical units to fill the bigger market. More companies mean more competition, which means lower pricing in general.

Its only a matter of time before someone makes a high quality 'Space Knight' multipart plastic kit.

I'm surprised that there isn't one already given the variety of resin manufacturers

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Its only a matter of time before someone makes a high quality 'Space Knight' multipart plastic kit.

I'm surprised that there isn't one already given the variety of resin manufacturers

This do?



Personally, I'm more inclined to Mantic Enforcers though, because the space knight aspect isn't for me, really.

 Talys wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.

I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!

Hm, an aos army made out Kingdom Death Mini's now that is an idea

Here is something you should look.

The first Url denote some bullish (favorable) movement. That is in 50 day closing prices in stock HOWEVER.... please take look at the rest of the information. All denotes a non favorable (Bearish) movement on the rest of the indicators provided.

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/games-workshop-group-plc-breached-its-50-day-moving-average-in-a-bullish-manner-gaw-gb-may-20-2016/

The second URL be the same company. Please note that now everything is in a Bearish manner.

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/games-workshop-group-plc-breached-its-50-day-moving-average-in-a-bearish-manner-gaw-gb-june-13-2016/

Even with GW's announcement, in the real world as far as performance, they are a flat as ever.

Now I know that GW will be around for a bit BUT they are not the 800 pound gorilla dictating what the h-h-h-obby should be. The tards had a chance to be great on being a break out non niche game but now they are nothing English Company with Common Wealth countries spoon feeding them their revenue.

Secondly they do have European influence HOWEVER over the years they have lost their player base in the US as well as all of Latin America.

I'll just throw this google chart, since it is free and anyone can take a look.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F012ywp&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B7

So YaY???? Great announcement? Eh no. Not really.


So have fun with your GW report. Because there is really nothing great about it.

Financial Report out:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015-16-Press-statement.pdf

Highlights:
Year to Year to
29 May 2016 31 May 2015
£000 £000
Revenue 118,069 119,132
Revenue at constant currency* 118,192 119,132
Operating profit - pre-royalties receivable 10,921 14,979
Royalties receivable 5,939 1,498
Operating profit 16,860 16,477
Profit before taxation 16,948 16,585
Cash generated from operations 26,782 25,579
Earnings per share 42.1p 38.3p
Dividends per share declared in the year 40p 52p

Just read it and it's nice to see a more professional element to these things rather than the deranged statements Kirby came out with lol.

So as we expected, their arses were pulled out of the fire by the video games, Total War and Vermintide.

They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.

Well that's what a niche hobby company should be doing. DnD make's most of their money the same way. Getting the IP out to video game developers etc. I think the new CEO understand's that since they allowed modding for total war warhammer, if they want to stay a float they gotta get their IP's out to good developers that can use it well.

I am glad at least AOS is doing well.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.

Maybe so but the hater crowd claims it sells worse than WHFB did and was some kind of financial disaster for GW. Good to hear the official word on the matter.

Revenue at constant currency* 118,192 119,132
Operating profit - pre-royalties receivable 10,921 14,979

So that's another million less revenue, and a 27% drop in pre-royalty operating profit?

That really doesn't sound good, since despite huge profit from royalties, they are still declining, and their operating profit has taken quite a dip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

motski wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.

Maybe so but the hater crowd claims it sells worse than WHFB did and was some kind of financial disaster for GW. Good to hear the official word on the matter.

Saying it's selling better than something that was canned due to low sales doesn't say much, especially when you consider that lots of sales will be falsely reported as being AoS - the panic buyers, the Warhammer Quest buyers etc, will all count as AoS sales even though they are unlikely to result in ongoing spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the plus side; they are paying out less in dividends that they earned for a change, which will give them a bit more buffer going forwards.

Incidentally, I normally keep track of when these reports come out and refresh discussion pages in the run up, this time I just plain forgot. I think I've reached the point where I just don't care enough about GW to be particularly interested in how it's doing.

I don't think you can credit panic buying - report effectively states it was only the second half of the year where things picked up for AoS.

That is a bit of a negative outlook isn't. Overall profits are up over last year. It shows that in the long term, Gw may be able to transition to a new business model.
The retail sector as a whole is suffering. Gw has been able to offset this with its royalties. That is good business.
Aos is selling better than the end times stuff. That is not bad. It seems clear from the subtext of his comments that Aos did not start well, but it is on an upwards trajectory. Gw is not setting the world on fire, but it seems set to survive for the foreseeable future, which is all I, as a customer, need.

RoperPG wrote:
I don't think you can credit panic buying - report effectively states it was only the second half of the year where things picked up for AoS.

Wasn't 2nd half of the year when stuff started going into "last chance to buy" and getting wholesale squatted?

Chikout wrote:
That is a bit of a negative outlook isn't. Overall profits are up over last year. It shows that in the long term, Gw may be able to transition to a new business model.
The retail sector as a whole is suffering. Gw has been able to offset this with its royalties. That is good business.
Aos is selling better than the end times stuff. That is not bad. It seems clear from the subtext of his comments that Aos did not start well, but it is on an upwards trajectory. Gw is not setting the world on fire, but it seems set to survive for the foreseeable future, which is all I, as a customer, need.

GW even admitted it did not launch well during warhammer fest. Everyone knew it did not launch well let's not forget I recall Kirby still had his hands in the pie then. They turned it around rather well in my opinion.

I think the next year will be more telling, as the remnants of the Old World gamers have moved on and there's essentially nothing left for them at GW. Of course, if they manage to group Blood Bowl in with AoS sales, AoS will have a bumper year.

Herzlos wrote:
I think the next year will be more telling, as the remnants of the Old World gamers have moved on and there's essentially nothing left for them at GW. Of course, if they manage to group Blood Bowl in with AoS sales, AoS will have a bumper year.

Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?

This is anecdotal but so far since AOS came out in my GW store there is actually gaps in my friend(who is the manager) fantasy shelf. That never happened before he was telling me constantly that his AOS range is actually doing better than when we had WHFB. Of course I had no evidence I am just glad this report reflect's what he said. This is based on the second half were AOS had to stand on it's own two legs and I feel it has.

With the general handbook out and the new types of battle tome's I think AOS will do okay in the future.

Right now if GW want's to stay afloat they gotta use their IP more. DnD knows this and I think GW are slowly starting to realize this with the report.

I kinda expected bit better report based on their forecast. Sales are still on slight downward trend, expenses are mostly well controlled though opening of new stores appears to have been signifant money sink. Royalties of course very strong but can it last?
It is like few of their previous reports - the ship is floating strong, but the pumpers are getting tired...

At very least we got our answer about AoS. First full year since WHFB was axed and numbers changed very little. So, WHFB wasn't doing much for the company in its last years and they were quite right to (re)boot it, though it can be argued whether it was done the best way.