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.

How do!

It’s that time of year again. Linky Linky https://images.ctfassets.net/ost7hseic9hc/7lRczzQBbvA22PEmSVJN8K/2de2f722e20e1d69b9aa3ed4e1b95678/2025-26_half_year_report_v3.pdf

Takings (+10.9%) and profits (+9% if I did my sum right) up, but due to Space Marine 2 in the previous year, Licensing Revenue has gone from £30m to £16m.

Some comments about impact of tariffs. I’m not gonna get into that myself, but seems the impact was lower than expected, at least partially attributed to actions taken.

AoS is to get a stand alone show episode on Prime. Doesn’t detail if that’s Secret Level or what.

Clear statement they’re not using AI but are of course having to look into it.

£31,000,000 in tax paid. Unsure if that’s all taxes, or just UK Corporation Tax and that.

We have agreed an internal policy to guide us all, which is currently very cautious e.g. we do not allow AI generated content or AI to be used in our design processes or its unauthorised use outside of GW including in any of our competitions. We also have to monitor and protect ourselves from a data compliance, security and governance perspective, the AI or machine learning engines seem to be automatically included on our phones or laptops whether we like it or not.

Honestly that reads like corporate speak for them hating the idea of AI and recognising it as a potential threat, but they also don't want to scare off investors by being too negative on the latest fad.

It's a lot more damning than expected.

 xttz wrote:

We have agreed an internal policy to guide us all, which is currently very cautious e.g. we do not allow AI generated content or AI to be used in our design processes or its unauthorised use outside of GW including in any of our competitions. We also have to monitor and protect ourselves from a data compliance, security and governance perspective, the AI or machine learning engines seem to be automatically included on our phones or laptops whether we like it or not.

Honestly that reads like corporate speak for them hating the idea of AI and recognising it as a potential threat, but they also don't want to scare off investors by being too negative on the latest fad.

It's a lot more damning than expected.

I read that more positively. "We are aware AI exists and don't pretend otherwise. However our output is driven by artists and we all hate AI when applied to the artistic field. We might use it for mundane stuff like spreadsheet management if we had to, but we don't currently touch it otherwise." Pretty clear that they don't want people taking shortcuts, or scaring contributors off. If any investors are red hot about the potential of AI, they should probably be investing somewhere else.

Yeah, it and the following paragraph reads to me that they’re aware some level of AI integration is all but unavoidable. See devices coming with it whether you want it or not.

But the important part is a committal to not using it in the creative process.

We know they used some at least semi-automated software to sort out the most efficient sprue layout and to help breakdown models to parts. But that’s absolutely not the same thing as allowing a computer to do all the work.

It’s also a statement, albeit not in so many words, that they won’t be cutting out the creative people for the sake of cost saving.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Some comments about impact of tariffs. I’m not gonna get into that myself, but seems the impact was lower than expected, at least partially attributed to actions taken.

On the face of it, it looks like the tariffs were applied how the US govt would like them to be, i.e. the importer (GW) absorbed the costs themselves, as the stated mitigation was "efficiencies/raw material savings" rather than "we knocked up the sales prices to compensate".

You could read that as a success all round, alternatively you could read it that margins for US sales are already high enough to cover the blip so who cares (or they covered it in the price rises since but don't feel the need to mention it). $1.8m of tariffs seems a very small figure considering how much GW must sell to the US.

Interesting they were having a mild go at the UK and US stores for declining turnover. Surely retail spending is down everywhere in the wider economy, but somehow the stores must "plan" to offset this? I wonder how that is supposed to work, considering the stores don't get to set prices or block their customer's access to discount sellers?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yeah, it and the following paragraph reads to me that they’re aware some level of AI integration is all but unavoidable. See devices coming with it whether you want it or not.

But the important part is a committal to not using it in the creative process.

We know they used some at least semi-automated software to sort out the most efficient sprue layout and to help breakdown models to parts. But that’s absolutely not the same thing as allowing a computer to do all the work.

It’s also a statement, albeit not in so many words, that they won’t be cutting out the creative people for the sake of cost saving.

Besides investors probably aware of the AI bubble that is building up...

GW stores aren’t like regular shops. They sell stuff, yes. But they also offer hobby sessions etc.

It won’t necessarily work. But relatively simple things, like offering more painting or gaming tutorials and actively inviting people to those gets people in the store. And someone visiting your store is infinitely more likely to buy something in said store than if they stayed home and looked online.

That gate swings both ways as well. I’m a fairly rudimentary painter. So if my customer is more advanced? I ask them if they can swing by and show me a technique,

 xttz wrote:

We have agreed an internal policy to guide us all, which is currently very cautious e.g. we do not allow AI generated content or AI to be used in our design processes or its unauthorised use outside of GW including in any of our competitions. We also have to monitor and protect ourselves from a data compliance, security and governance perspective, the AI or machine learning engines seem to be automatically included on our phones or laptops whether we like it or not.

Honestly that reads like corporate speak for them hating the idea of AI and recognising it as a potential threat, but they also don't want to scare off investors by being too negative on the latest fad.

It's a lot more damning than expected.

And good on them! We don't need boutique-priced slop.

17% increase in core revenue (pretty much anything but licensing) is really impressive, especially since GW is already making an implausible amount of money for what is basically a 1980s business model (selling toy soldiers). Here's some interesting snippets:

we are very proud to manufacture all of our fantasy miniatures in the UK

Does this imply that some 40k miniatures are manufactured elsewhere? Maybe they count the Joytoy ones? These reports are usually precise when they refer to fantasy versus sci-fi.

We began the year with the formidable ‘Space Wolves’ for ‘Warhammer 40,000’ which set a new record for army box
sales - a format specifically designed for hobbyists who want ‘all the new miniatures’ in a release.

I didn't know it sold that well.

Of our 575 stores, 424 are low cost, 148 are multi
person operating extended hours and we have three café format stores: two in the US and one in Japan.

I understand why they don't have very many big stores, but I'd like to try visiting one of them at some point.

Fantasy refers to all their minis, as 40k is still a fantasy game.

Honestly considering the last year has been pretty brutal on sales and people spending its good to hear GW continuing to remain strong.

Their stance on AI is also very encouraging to read honestly. Some firms are going all out to embrace or not stop AI (seriously try finding actual artists on Displate right now - unless they are a big name or brand its very hard).

It's great to see them saying they won't use AI! I expected them to do the opposite. .

I'm not totally surprised- we've known for ages that GW is "designer led" in a lot of sectors (not all of course).

Now if they were owned by Hasbro I'd be much more expecting them to go full on AI-Bros and pushing cheap AI over hired skilled staff as much as they could in every creative field.

Don’t feel too sad.

I’m sure we’ll still see folks claiming anything not to their tastes to be AI Slop.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t feel too sad.

I’m sure we’ll still see folks claiming anything not to their tastes to be AI Slop.

Thats beyond the point or issue. When companies are already using ai painted miniatures and such...

Good on GW for sticking with human artists. Now if they'd just credit said artists we'd be golden.

 Da Boss wrote:
Good on GW for sticking with human artists. Now if they'd just credit said artists we'd be golden.

We've seen the unfortunate outcome of when they credit their staff in the past and it's probably better this way.

I reckon that's self serving bollocks from GW. They could offer to remove credit when staff ask rather than having a blanket policy because of one (awful) incident.

They sort of touched on the subject in the 50th anniversary issue if White Dwarf. Explanation given that now there is a large team involved in the process of designing and producing a miniature so too many people to credit.

It's more than one occasion - we've had codex writers and the Warhammer Adventure writers both get insane levels of hate mail from some "fans".


Also from working with a few, a good many artists don't want lots of attention. Not that they don't like compliments; but more that they can feel that their work gets torn apart - every mistake magnified; every fan demanding MORE from them than the last time even to the point of outcry when the artist doesn't create what the fan envisioned etc....


I can see why GW might just adopt a blanket policy - alongside the company one of not wanting to over-grow talent that can then leave them. Because we know a GOOD number of nonGW firms are started by people who once worked for GW. IT can also get complicated because some sculptors working for 3rd parties will also contract for GW - so suddenly GW are promoting someone who is sculpting for them but who also run their own model line and game and so forth. That gets messy really quickly.

 Del Mingus wrote:
They sort of touched on the subject in the 50th anniversary issue if White Dwarf. Explanation given that now there is a large team involved in the process of designing and producing a miniature so too many people to credit.

This makes sense to me. We're no longer in the early 2010s when you could point at a faction and go "Oh, Simon Egan designed these!".

Actually, now that I think on it, do we even know who is pulling the strings when it comes to design at the very top, and tells the designers what to make? For example, when they designed the new Space Wolves, do we know who it is that actually decided that they should have some old-style faceplates and knees mixed in, and that they should have bolt carbines resembling old boltguns? There's no way it wasn't a conscious and deliberate design decision with how much GW cares about their core miniatures range.

Well, Jes Goodwin is still there. I’d imagine he’s positioned to have considerable say.

But it’s always been pretty collaborative. If you seek out Filmdeg and Jordan Sorcery on YouTube, you’ll find interviews with past staff who confirm, even back in the olden days of “sod it, that’ll be good for a laugh” it was never just one person doing their own thing in seclusion.

 Overread wrote:
It's more than one occasion - we've had codex writers and the Warhammer Adventure writers both get insane levels of hate mail from some "fans".

Also from working with a few, a good many artists don't want lots of attention. Not that they don't like compliments; but more that they can feel that their work gets torn apart - every mistake magnified; every fan demanding MORE from them than the last time even to the point of outcry when the artist doesn't create what the fan envisioned etc....

All good points. I do wonder how many artists want to be credited given the community response to things like Coteaz.

It's also worth noting that modern GW models aren't a solo project. They'll have someone create concept art which is then given to someone else to sculpt in 3D, probably a manager weighing in on that with opinions. Then another specialist turns that design into sprues, sometimes having to decide which bits/options are included/dropped.

When a kit is particularly good or bad who takes the credit?

Yep esp as GW also does a lot of hiring in of part-time sculpting staff and such. So even a "design team" might have a good many who flit in and out of working for GW so even if they did a whole studio team display it could be wildly inaccurate as to who is or isn't working for them barring a core of long term staffers.

 xttz wrote:
I do wonder how many artists want to be credited given the community response to things like Coteaz.

Commercial artists generally want to be credited, although modern Studio employees might value "5 years in GW Design Studio" over individual credits these days.

 xttz wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It's more than one occasion - we've had codex writers and the Warhammer Adventure writers both get insane levels of hate mail from some "fans".

Also from working with a few, a good many artists don't want lots of attention. Not that they don't like compliments; but more that they can feel that their work gets torn apart - every mistake magnified; every fan demanding MORE from them than the last time even to the point of outcry when the artist doesn't create what the fan envisioned etc....

All good points. I do wonder how many artists want to be credited given the community response to things like Coteaz.

It's also worth noting that modern GW models aren't a solo project. They'll have someone create concept art which is then given to someone else to sculpt in 3D, probably a manager weighing in on that with opinions. Then another specialist turns that design into sprues, sometimes having to decide which bits/options are included/dropped.

When a kit is particularly good or bad who takes the credit?

Old GW models weren't either. John Blanche wasn't sculpting anything. I doubt the Perry Twins were working out how their models fit on sprues.

Yeah, regardless of whether Studio sculptors want to be credited or not (and I doubt they don't), there's a pre-existing practice for crediting not just in GW, but across the industry as a whole.

Having spoken to some ex-GW creatives, I'm not inclined to take GW's "too many cooks in the kitchen, too much ink to print all the names" line as anything but an excuse.

It is clear to me as a veteran games industry professional that it’s about online harassment of the people who make the products. This is not about one incident, but about a problem that has been ongoing for years in the industry.

 Pariah Press wrote:
It is clear to me as a veteran games industry professional that it’s about online harassment of the people who make the products. This is not about one incident, but about a problem that has been ongoing for years in the industry.

Has any company in the industry besides GW decided to withdraw credits for all their creators from their products? People should get recognition for the work they have done. Having a name to put to a piece of art is also one way to deflect any accusations of AI use.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Pariah Press wrote:
It is clear to me as a veteran games industry professional that it’s about online harassment of the people who make the products. This is not about one incident, but about a problem that has been ongoing for years in the industry.

Has any company in the industry besides GW decided to withdraw credits for all their creators from their products? People should get recognition for the work they have done. Having a name to put to a piece of art is also one way to deflect any accusations of AI use.

Being the big one in the industry they get a lot of extra focus and coverage. Like GW has been generally successful in the last few years, but negative videos saying they are failing still come up constantly.

It’s a niche hobby, so the people trying to make money of GW negativity really can’t focus on other companies or people.
The only similar thing I think in the industry is D&D or MTG, which I both think have a massive community that pushed back on it earlier.