Just saw over on Natfka that the Britonians might be getting squated into a "Kingdoms of men" book. /sigh
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/bretonnians-getting-rolled-into-empire.html?m=1

Hmm... always liked Bretonnia and thought they were way more different than another type of Marine, but if the product is dipping, I could see why they'd consolidate the rules... More surprised from a fluff perspective (how much would be lost by consolidating the books?) than from a rules perspective (seems like a few special rules and unit types could make the two distinct)

If Natfka says it, odds are it isn't true.

I call BS. Most of the stuff pulled is finecast, and bad finecast at that. Anyone that has followed the range has seen some options in the hero/lord section dwindle for some time now. It wasn't until the last month that some units like the trebuchet got pulled, and even before that, the online store said "usually ships within 4 weeks" for many of their units.

My guess is they didn't make that many of the Bretonnian range in the switch to finecast, so were low stock on models that don't particularly sell well, and they decided not to make another batch of the model. Likely they will just ride it out until a release later in the year where much of the range will be expanded and replaced with plastic.

If anything about this rumor is true, it's that they expand Bretonnian lore to include Tilea and Estalia as kingdoms that pay tribute to Bretonnia in an effort to help expand the flavor of the army. Even then though, I doubt it.

This rumor doesn't mesh with any of the previous Bret rumors so I would be surprised to see anything come of it. This rumor seems to be just an extension of the whole "GW abandoning WHFB" rumor mongering.

The Empire book is too new to be rereleased anytime soon.

No one can be sure what will happen to the Brettonians though. Fantasy sales are low that is not really in dispute, but what GW plans to do about it is impossible to guess.

It will be very interesting to see if they finally make the dwarf army interesting to play or if it will be in the same rut that it has been stuck in since 3rd edition.

Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

There's a reason Mantic Games (with Ronnie Renton having been at GW for over a decade) decided to not make "normal" human miniatures for Kings of War, and stick with Ogres and Elves instead.

Humans don't sell (unless they're Space Marines).

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

There's a reason Mantic Games (with Ronnie Renton having been at GW for over a decade) decided to not make "normal" human miniatures for Kings of War, and stick with Ogres and Elves instead.

Humans don't sell (unless they're Space Marines).

Or Imperial Guard.

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

Avian wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Imperial Guard.

Not really. Tanks sell (obviously). Not the dudes in fatigues.

Empire was actually one of the better FB sellers until the current book hit.

So that's not it.

Avian wrote:
Empire was actually one of the better FB sellers until the current book hit.

So that's not it.

No it wasn't. Ronnie Renton left 2008..ish. Shortly after the 7th Edition Empire book. Knowing that Empire was the bottom of the pile, he decided to not make a version for Kings of War (in Miniatures).

Early Kings of War is a good indicator for what sells and what doesn't. It gave rule, but no miniatures, for Empire-style armies ("inviting" people to use miniatures from other manufacturers), but made miniatures for profitable lines (Elves, Orcs, etc..) that could be used with other manufacturers' rules (e.g. GW),

Empire were a loss-maker with their 6th Edition book. They were a loss maker with their 7th Edition book. They are a loss maker with their 8th Edition, despite having more new kits and development resource thrown at them than Tau and Eldar together.

Why should Brets be different?

Well, user Archibald_TK over at Warseer, who runs an independent store in Europe and has been handy with info on sales figures and whatnot, says that up until the most recent book, they were one of the best sellers.

You don't really think that GW would have put out "all kinds of fancy new kits" for them if Empire was at the bottom of the pile, do you?

WoC are humans, and they sell, so human WHFB armies do sell

The other (And probably primairy) reason Mantic havent made a human line is that there are so many historical miniatures that are a great price and quality you can base Kingsdoms of Men armies off that in making a fantasy human line you are competing with every other manufacturer out there.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

Empire and Orcs were treated as the 'core' fantasy races by GW for years, I can only assume that this was backed up by their sales.

Avian wrote:
Well, user Archibald_TK over at Warseer, who runs an independent store in Europe and has been handy with info on sales figures and whatnot, says that up until the most recent book, they were one of the best sellers.

You don't really think that GW would have put out "all kinds of fancy new kits" for them if Empire was at the bottom of the pile, do you?

Sure they would.

A, because they can't really kill off the Empire. It's sort of core to the setting.

B, because occasionally they do give it "a go" (e.g. Dark Eldar) to see if the "if-only-we've-had-new-models-and up-to-date-rules-it-would-sell" idea works.

I doubt GW is "blind" to the vicious circle of unsupported armies being unsuccessful because they are unsupported. It is a real possibility. But that doesn't mean its true for every bad-selling army. Sometimes, it's simply a line of miniatures that isn't worth it. Period.

And one shop doesn't change that. The best-selling miniature wargame at my local shop is SAGA (fantasy humans, funny enough), but that hardly makes it the best-selling miniature wargame in the industry. It's just a local fluke driven by a handful of enthusiasts.

 carlos13th wrote:
The other (And probably primairy) reason Mantic havent made a human line is that there are so many historical miniatures that are a great price and quality you can base Kingsdoms of Men armies off that in making a fantasy human line you are competing with every other manufacturer out there.

Exactly, unless someone is dead set on their models lacking shoes or being blind, there really isn't a reason to buy GW's fantasy humans.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

 Zweischneid wrote:

And one shop doesn't change that. The best-selling miniature wargame at my local shop is SAGA (fantasy humans, funny enough), but that hardly makes it the best-selling miniature wargame in the industry. It's just a local fluke driven by a handful of enthusiasts.

SAGA is a historical game (in so far as any game can be historical), not fantasy.

Great figures for skirmish bands.

A couple of knights on horse, a few archers, some peasents... come see the violence inherent in the system!

Myself? I'd like to see some added..variety to the range. The do not need a "New Army" book, just some added content, and consistancy.

I had an issue, back in the day of just buying more then 1 box of knights, and the basic red boxed set contents. I didn't see value in the purchase to take them seriously. Even with the formation charge, the army sucked into an enemy and died in the follow through of the charge.

I started playing them in some HQ, back way back when, and they had an interesting side effect of bringing in some added ranged attacks, and some filler attacks, then I'd use the earnings for a few more members in my band for the old Hogs Head RPG party followers, when the game was fun.

That hero had the lickies and chewies, and his "Team" was a support element. Skermishly, they play great. anything lerger... meh.

 Palindrome wrote:
, I can only assume that this was backed up by their sales.

Citation needed! Lol.

Not really, of course. However, just because you "assume", doesn't make it so. At least "assume" that the alternative hypothesis could also be correct and Empire was in the "core" because of the way the setting was conceived before they started worrying about the business-side of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
WoC are humans, and they sell, so human WHFB armies do sell

True.

Another reason GW might think about not supporting the less-successful human WHFB armies and just keep the one or two that do better.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

Because of the sweepiness of the statement.

GW has a habit of occasionally rebooting a miniature line after a decade or so of no attention, but they don't continuously support non-sellers (look at their LotR / Hobbit line). Since Empire was the first (essentially) all plastic Fantasy line, we must assume that tales of them being a big seller (relative to other Fantasy armies, anyway) are true.

Fantasy humans do sell, but I'd be hard-pressed to say what was fantasy about the Empire and Brettonia.

They're more Renaissance/Middle Ages human, and there's tons of competition in that space (as you pointed out with the KoW example). The fantasy elements in the Empire are few and far between, and Brettonia doesn't have a ton more either. The demi-gryph/pegasus knights are the only ones that really spring to mind.

On the other end of the coin you have WoC, who have a distinct iconography with numerous fantastical units (mutations, etc.) tied into said design and in the case of the warriors appeal to the "heavily armored supermen" motif that drives Space Marine sales.

So I would say the more correct hypothesis is "generic historical-looking humans are a saturated market." It's not that they don't sell, or else the market wouldn't have become saturated. It's that there are so many offerings that one manufacturer will not enjoy the dominance/sales they can with a more distinct style of model. That non-humans are much easier to make have that distinct style since they're wholly fictional likely contributes as well.

On-topic, I wouldn't mind a Kingdoms of Men book so much if that book was expanded to include good chunks Estalia and Tilea and not "Brettonians plus two more kits" kind of nonsense. Then we could have pseudo-French, Spanish AND Italians...

Humans don't sell (unless they're Space Marines).

Eh, I dunno about that. I think there's a big market for well constructed human armies just as much as any other army. I, for one, am definitely interested in a quality human Fantasy army Given I have a Bret army in Fantasy and a Rohan force and a Harad force in LOTR... the people are out there, you just have to appeal to them. Just because GW have failed to appeal to peoples' tastes with their Fantasy human offerings doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. I personally think there'd be a bigger market for a good human army than something like an Ogre army (if it weren't for the appeal of Ogre's having very few models).

 Zweischneid wrote:
Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

I don't know how well the Empire sold (do we have any sales figures?), but I found the Empire release pretty "meh". You have to appeal to the audience who is buying the army, and I think the typical human-fantasy player doesn't necessarily want a giant Karl Franz, silly looking chicken cavalry and giant contraptions of goodness knows what called "Celestial Hurricanum" or "Luminark of Hysh".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

I don't know how well the Empire sold (do we have any sales figures?), but I found the Empire release pretty "meh". You have to appeal to the audience who is buying the army, and I think the typical human-fantasy player doesn't necessarily want a giant Karl Franz, silly looking chicken cavalry and giant contraptions of goodness knows what called "Celestial Hurricanum" or "Luminark of Hysh".

Which brings us back to the problem.

What exactly could they release for their human fantasy armies that a) isn't "meh" as you say it, b) isn't covered by Perry Miniatures and c) adds something relevant to the game. Not to mention doing it twice for two near-identical armies in the case of Brets and Empire?

What exactly do you propose to add to Bretonnians to make them Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight-style-mega-sellers in the GW catalog?

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Just saw over on Natfka that the Britonians might be getting squated into a "Kingdoms of men" book. /sigh
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/bretonnians-getting-rolled-into-empire.html?m=1

Well the name is definatley wrong.They already have a book called kingdoms of men for gondor/Rohan.It would be confusing to have another.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What exactly do you propose to add to Bretonnians to make them Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight-style-mega-sellers in the GW catalog?

Big ol' fething dragon, probably.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
What exactly do you propose to add to Bretonnians to make them Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight-style-mega-sellers in the GW catalog?

Big ol' fething dragon, probably.

Not a bad idea.

But do you need Bretonnians to release a big ol' fething dragon though?

Could just squat Bretonnians and release the Dragon anyways for Chaos or High Elves are whatever, no?

Seems surprising... I assumed Brettonians were a pretty core faction for WHFB, but I could certainly be wrong.

Too bad dragons are worthless in WFB along with half of the unit types. They should start by fixing the game to make more types of armies viable. So many of the armies are barely playable..

 Krinsath wrote:

On-topic, I wouldn't mind a Kingdoms of Men book so much if that book was expanded to include good chunks Estalia and Tilea and not "Brettonians plus two more kits" kind of nonsense. Then we could have pseudo-French, Spanish AND Italians...

I don't follow fantasy much but adding in Tilea sounds like something (at least on the 40k side) that would be done with a $50 subcodex containing the equivalent of 3 print page of rules. They'd then repeat with the others for $50 each.

Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

There's a reason Mantic Games (with Ronnie Renton having been at GW for over a decade) decided to not make "normal" human miniatures for Kings of War, and stick with Ogres and Elves instead.

Humans don't sell (unless they're Space Marines).

There is no could be here. Do you have an figures on that? You are stating this as if its a fact.

Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Here it is again. You have added could be to the start of the sentence but this seems to be a rhetorical device more than a statement that you think you might be wrong. Espeically because you have added. Period at the end. Implying you are correct end of discussion. So it seems strange you would hide behind the words could be once someone asked you to back up your statement.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Imperial Guard.

Not really. Tanks sell (obviously). Not the dudes in fatigues.

Another statement? Figures on this one?

Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:
Empire was actually one of the better FB sellers until the current book hit.

So that's not it.

No it wasn't. Ronnie Renton left 2008..ish. Shortly after the 7th Edition Empire book. Knowing that Empire was the bottom of the pile, he decided to not make a version for Kings of War (in Miniatures).

Empire were a loss-maker with their 6th Edition book. They were a loss maker with their 7th Edition book. They are a loss maker with their 8th Edition, despite having more new kits and development resource thrown at them than Tau and Eldar together.

Why should Brets be different?

Do you know this for a fact? Do you have any sales figures to show that they lost money on 6th, 7th and 8th edition Empire?

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

 carlos13th wrote:

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

I am stating neither opinion nor fact.

I am hypothesizing that the rumour discussed here (for that is the purpose of this thread) is true, and provide speculative reasons for why a business-decision by GW in accordance with these rumours could be rational.

Inversely, people have claimed that the rumours are "impossible", most often on the reason that Empire is a good seller and/or that Brets would be, if given a proper "treatment" (for which the recent-Empire-treatment would be the closest available comparison). All, likewise,without numbers. If you make factual numbers a requirement, do so for everyone.

It's still a rumour in the end though, and it's not a rumour that would ultimately agree with my personal opinion if it came true.

However, trying to see things "from GW's side" has proven to be a good method for me to "judge" rumours, and the idea that GW is looking at Brets with sales-numbers for Empire isn't terribly far fetched (yes.. in my opinion).

 carlos13th wrote:

Do you know this for a fact? Do you have any sales figures to show that they lost money on 6th, 7th and 8th edition Empire?

Do you have any sales figures to show that they didn't lose money on 6th, 7th and 8th Edition Empire?

If not, my assumption - based on anecdotal evidence - is at least as good as yours. Let's call it 50/50 and see, which version would be better suited to explain the rumour discussed in this thread.

I haven't made an assumption. I haven't stated anything at all. I have no idea what sells and what doesn't over at GW, I don't pretend to.

You are stating opinions as if they are facts.You are making statements about what sells and what doesn't. They were not just hypothesis. If they were meant to be you worded them very badly.

 carlos13th wrote:
They were not just hypothesis. If they were meant to be you worded them very badly.

They weren't the hypotheses. The hypothesis was (is!) Bretonnians get rolled into the Empire army book.

Upon which an hypothesis was formed in the second or third post that Bretonnians would sell, if they'd get a "proper treatment", which I found to be an implausible one.

Context! Try reading it for a change.

So I state once again. Do you have any proof that humans dont sell? or are you making it up and stating it as fact.

Guys, I have it on GOOD FAITH that the Brets will now be squatted.

What's the scoop?

I just traded a full Skaven army for a full Brets army, that's why. XD

 carlos13th wrote:
So I state once again. Do you have any proof that humans dont sell? or are you making it up and stating it as fact.

Proof? No.

Evidence in support of an argument (short of definite proof, and not indisputable)? Yes. As presented in my previous posts.


Do you have definite proof contradicting my evidence? Or can we continue to discuss GW-practices like the rest of the internet on the basis of obviously always imperfect information about GW's business accounts, without mentioning this in every single post.

So you are going for.

You don't have any evidence against what I am saying thus I am right?

In that case next month they are releasing a unicorn army.

 carlos13th wrote:
So you are going for.

You don't have any evidence against what I am saying thus I am right?

In that case next month they are releasing a unicorn army.

There is plenty of evidence against what I am saying (as well as in support of what I am saying). There just isn't any proof one way or another.

These are two different things.

We were all having a fine and civilized conversation on the basis of evidence, before you started to raise the benchmark to proof for one side of the argument (but not the other).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

I am stating neither opinion nor fact.

I am hypothesizing that the rumour discussed here (for that is the purpose of this thread) is true, ....

Given who it's from, that's a pretty daft starting point. With anything you read on Natfka, the zero hypothesis should be that they are wrong, since most of them are. If you can't find any evidence that contradicts that, you should continue assuming they are wrong.

Da krimson barun wrote:

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Just saw over on Natfka that the Britonians might be getting squated into a "Kingdoms of men" book. /sigh
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/bretonnians-getting-rolled-into-empire.html?m=1

Well the name is definatley wrong.They already have a book called kingdoms of men for gondor/Rohan.It would be confusing to have another.

Well GW are not afraid to reuse names between systems

forge world karybdis = Big Uberdroppod thingy

GW Dark Elf karybdid = scaly monster thingy

Avian wrote:

Given who it's from, that's a pretty daft starting point. With anything you read on Natfka, the zero hypothesis should be that they are wrong, since most of them are. If you can't find any evidence that contradicts that, you should continue assuming they are wrong.

I don't. Because the rumour makes a lot of sense, given the evidence (not proof) I previously presented. It's sufficient for me to reject the natfka-is-wrong-null-hypothesis and assume that the rumour is correct (as far as "Brets-aren't-viable-enough-for-an-update", not necessarily the specifics of how the future book may or may not look like).

If you doubt my inference, I'm willing to bet you a year of DCM.

It's all fairly irrelevant anyway if the rumour

Fantasy is being rebooted with 3 big (?) multi-race army books for the next edition

is to be belived

By 'the treatment' do you mean, to quote Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, the 'KY treatment'?

This would be a shame. I wouldn't mind seeing some updated medieval knights. For some reason GW Bret range is the only thing close to nice looking medieval knights.

Considering Nafka on Faeit has less than a 50% accuracy rate currently on rumors, I'm not putting much stock in this.

Considering GW has been keeping all of their armies around (Sisters at least got a Digital codex, so not squatted), and GW wouldn't miss a chance to sell yet another book.

Sure, Fantasy hasn't had much attention lately, but they've also sunk quite a bit into plastic production for fantasy armies, and brets just recently had a majority of the army redone in pretty nice plastics - knights, men-at-arms, arches, pegasus, etc., there would be no reason to squat them. All the work is done aside from coming up with a couple new big models to add to the army book.

And GW going to a 3-book warhammer armies series is quite far-fetched, unless they were selling them for $200 each. I'm sure they'll continue to flog 16 different $50 army books.

@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Empire historically has been a big seller for GW. Popular enough that GW was willing to put in the investment to make them the first all-plastic army which didn't depend on starter sets (as opposed to low selling armies like WE and Brets which get the bare minimum number of plastic sets, and no updates). The current book made the biggest money maker among new players - infantry - a bad choice. The big griffon model was also a bad choice. That's why the army isn't a big seller now - the average army can have a similar number of models to the average current WoC army.

Balance wrote:Seems surprising... I assumed Brettonians were a pretty core faction for WHFB, but I could certainly be wrong.

Bretonnia is fun. I like Bretonnia. Aside from the 'foreign' races like lizardmen and tomb kings, Bretonnia is as non-core to the story as anything (tie with a bunch of races). I don't give this rumour any credence because I think GW is more likely to just ignore an army indefinitely than to squat an army, but Bretonnia is far from core to the game.

decker_cky wrote:
@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Quite the opposite. I am arguing that Empire doesn't sell, never did, and certainly wasn't helped by the massive investments, so Bretonnians in all likelihood won't sell either (e.g. GW's - as far as I can tell - losing money with Empire, why would they want another one?)

Admittedly, all "fantasy humans" was a bad way to put it. Warriors of Chaos, as noted, are very popular.

decker_cky wrote:


The current book made the biggest money maker among new players - infantry - a bad choice. The big griffon model was also a bad choice.

Infantry was a bad choice? Big Griffon was a bad choice? Seems like you've got the Empire covered from one extreme to the other. Let's just simplify it to "Empire was a bad choice".

As said, companies with the advantage of hindsight (e.g. Mantic Games around ex-GW staff) stayed the hell away from it, because no matter what models you do and what you try with the rules (and Kings of War is an excellent set of rules), if you stick to that basic faux-historic "archetype", you'll probably be losing money.

Mantic have never said humans don't sell. They've been quite clear that they won't make the generic humans since there's so much competition on the market. If they 'knew' that fantasy humans didn't sell, then why did they make an entirely new fantasy human army? Doesn't that kind of ruin that entire branch of your argument.

Did Ronnie really fall and hit his head in the last week of the kickstarter campaign and forget that humans don't sell?

I've heard from local district managers a few years back, and seen the opinion from other regions posted that Empire has generally always been a very popular army. This thread is actually the first place I've ever seen it suggested that Empire wasn't a good seller. The eyeball test both from areas I've gamed, and from thinking back to the number of empire armies I've seen in various tournament results doesn't seem to suggest they're an unpopular armies. From all that information, I'd probably rank Empire as a top 5 army in terms of popularity.

 Zweischneid wrote:
It's sufficient for me to reject the natfka-is-wrong-null-hypothesis and assume that the rumour is correct (as far as "Brets-aren't-viable-enough-for-an-update", not necessarily the specifics of how the future book may or may not look like).

If you doubt my inference, I'm willing to bet you a year of DCM.

You are willing to trust a combination of your gut and Natfka?

What exactly would we be betting on? And what is a DCM anyway?

This seems like it's drawing on the old rumor of all the armies being condensed into larger books divided by loyalties and alliances etc.

part of the problem with fantasy i think is that the look of the models is getting worse instead of better.

a good example:

this



to this:



all the random detailing doesnt mesh well together IMO. some of the detailing just looks dumb. they are skeletons that use skeleton bones to add details to themselves? ok.........

also many of the big dumb overdone new plastic kits are laughably bad and ridiculous looking. maybe some people enjoy that look, personally, i hate it.

another example

old model:



new

To the poster above, I must question your model taste for the first set of images, and the second in the second set of images has had a head swap, which does indeed make it awful. Here's the proper model, which looks better:



OT, I'm surprised that Bretonnians would get "the Black Templar" treatment. BT were basically like Siam-Hann or Biel-Tan are for Eldar, Bretonnia are a completely different army with different history, units and playstyle. Yes, they're both human armies, but they're no similar to Empire than High Elves are to Wood Elves.

 The Shadow wrote:
To the poster above, I must question your model taste for the first set of images, and the second in the second set of images has had a head swap, which does indeed make it awful. Here's the proper model, which looks better:



OT, I'm surprised that Bretonnians would get "the Black Templar" treatment. BT were basically like Siam-Hann or Biel-Tan are for Eldar, Bretonnia are a completely different army with different history, units and playstyle. Yes, they're both human armies, but they're no similar to Empire than High Elves are to Wood Elves.

he doesn't wear armour on his upper body, just bondage straps? we are all very impressed that he can turn his right arm into a bat wing.

that model looks not good. i wont say terrible, but definitely not good.

With no disrespect to the OP, this "rumor" sounds like complete junk. When models disappear from the online store, it's a sign that the kits are being redone, not that the army is getting squatted. Plus, the Empire received a new book somewhat recently, which means they're not due for an update anytime soon.

 Zweischneid wrote:

decker_cky wrote:
@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Quite the opposite. I am arguing that Empire doesn't sell, never did, and certainly wasn't helped by the massive investments, so Bretonnians in all likelihood won't sell either (e.g. GW's - as far as I can tell - losing money with Empire, why would they want another one?)

Admittedly, all "fantasy humans" was a bad way to put it. Warriors of Chaos, as noted, are very popular.

Huh, I didn't realize that my first Warhammer army wasn't Empire. How could I have bought it if it didn't sell? Stupid sarcasm aside, GW's own actions suggest how wonderful of a seller Empire was-it was the first fantasy army to be made entirely of plastic. Back in 7th, every model except named characters were plastic. That was unheard of for every other fantasy army out there. Orcs and Goblins were the next closest, I believe, and even they had a ton of metal-to-finecast stuff. GW's own actions prove you wrong Zweisch. Just admit it. You're the only guy railing on here that humans don't sell well. Empire was also the mostly widely owned army in my old hometown which had a VERY small Warhammer following. There were 5 or 6 of us who played Empire. Almost 50% of our player base had an Empire army. Sure, that's a small sample: very small. But it goes against what you suggest. As does GW's treatment of the Empire line. As does almost, if not every, other poster in this thread. If you're arguing that EVERYONE else is wrong because they disagree with you...it's a sure bet who is actually making the mistake.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What exactly could they release for their human fantasy armies that a) isn't "meh" as you say it, b) isn't covered by Perry Miniatures and c) adds something relevant to the game. Not to mention doing it twice for two near-identical armies in the case of Brets and Empire?

Here's one for starters: a regiment of apprentice wizards from the College of Magic.

decker_cky wrote:
Mantic have never said humans don't sell. They've been quite clear that they won't make the generic humans since there's so much competition on the market.

And yet they did anyway. And they were absolute gak.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Imperial Guard.

Not really. Tanks sell (obviously). Not the dudes in fatigues.

You are hugely mistaken, the catachan ig models (which I personally dont like) were a huge sales success and made a ton of money for GW.

There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

Back on topic, I think a more likely rumor would be that Bretonnia is getting an update in the near future (sometime this year), and the models pulled were all finecast and will likely be redone in plastic.

riburn3 wrote:
There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

There's no way.

Empire's is hardly old, and we've been told Dwarves are coming up with an individual book next month.

The idea of Warhammer being split into large "forces of order" or "kingdoms of men" books makes no sense regarding the current releases. Dark Elves wouldn't have been a separate book.

Bretonnians are slotted to get an update, hence the removal of models from the online store. They're likely to get newer sculpts, with new kits to replace the old, outdated ones.

These rumors are likely coming from someone outside the WHFB community. Which isn't an issue, but the direction GW seems to be taking does not involve "squatting" Bretonnians.

I'll bet on that.

 -Loki- wrote:
That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

Which are largely meaningless because popularity varies from region to region. I'd say about a third of Fantasy players near me collected either Brets or Empire (not necessarily as their only army, for me, Brets are my 2nd army next to Lizardmen).

I'll be closely watching for new Bretonnians. Though I don't think my desire for Bretonnians fits in with GW's current aesthetic (I prefer the old school Bretonnians that didn't have massive heads and excessive detail).

 -Loki- wrote:

riburn3 wrote:
There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

My point exactly. It's purely anecdotal at that point. My store sells as much fantasy as it does 40k but I don't take that to mean both games are equal in sales nationwide or worldwide. What's popular at one location doesn't mean it's that way at another. Heck, even in my own city there's a couple of stores that will only play 40k at the store and stock based on that, and there's a store with a much larger Fantasy following and a product selection to match. I'm sure other cities or regions follow a similar pattern.

If anything, Fantasy has been rebounding lately as more disatisfied 40k players give the system a try. If it truly were dying they wouldn't have updated 5 fantasy armies last year only to consolidate armies a year or two later, that would be bad business. I believe Bretonnia will be getting an update, and it will be before the end of the year.

 carlos13th wrote:
The other (And probably primairy) reason Mantic havent made a human line is that there are so many historical miniatures that are a great price and quality you can base Kingsdoms of Men armies off that in making a fantasy human line you are competing with every other manufacturer out there.

Think this is probably an important consideration. Really, Bretonnians are just a less-fantastical version of Empire - you can get better miniatures for knights/men-at-arms and billmen/archers etc for less money from Perry (amongst many other manufacturers). And, I know a lot of people tend to take that route.

However, they do seem quite a popular army (from what I can see), in a lot of cases I think from closet Historicals players, and definitely were last edition when cavalry was that much more effective. Also, there is nothing to stop GW releasing a massive plastic kit for them, making the rules for it so good that it is an essential purpose, and going from there. Then even if you lose out on the rank and file sales to other manufacturers they will still make money from that and the army book.

 Pacific wrote:
Really, Bretonnians are just a less-fantastical version of Empire

No. Bretonnians are medieval, Empire is renaissance. Both are filled with magic users and cryptozoological organism.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

Because when you say "Period." in this manner after a statement - be it actual fact, or hypothesis, in common argot you are implying that there is no debate worth having, nothing will sway your mind on the matter. Ergo, that takes it from hypothesis to a statement of fact.

Or, probably more likely, i think he might have been busting your balls, as you're always crowing at people for citations.

 Haight wrote:



Because when you say "Period." in this manner after a statement - be it actual fact, or hypothesis, in common argot you are implying that there is no debate worth having, nothing will sway your mind on the matter. Ergo, that takes it from hypothesis to a statement of fact.

No I am not, because you are ignoring the context of the post (which was quoted) this line responded to.

The original post was a list of possible / hypothesized reasons, ending with an "all of the above".

. It could be ....
. it could be ....
. it could be ...
. it could be all of the above.

To this post, I responded with a possible alternative explanation ("could be"), which would in itself be sufficient and equally likely to explain things ("period").

There is no way the closing "period" could be interpreted the way you did above, if people would read the full post that the sentence appeared in.

The "period" underlines the "occam's razor" appeal of my side of the argument, needing "only one" reason to explain a phenomenon, that others attribute to a (IMO) less plausible combination of several reasons that would need to be true to explain the phenomenon in question.

Context. It matters.

 Haight wrote:


Or, probably more likely, i think he might have been busting your balls, as you're always crowing at people for citations.

Do I?

I wasn't aware of that.

In the nearly twenty years I been playing or following this game, two books have gone away. Dogs of war and chaos dwarves. Neither had more than one book, and both books were mostly just white dwarf articles. Both also had predominantly metal model lines. The Bret's have had at least 2 books and have 4 current kits that I see on the table frequently in other armies. I imagine the moods are long paid for, and gw's profit or loss comes from their manufacturing costs only. Even on the 40k side, the sisters of battle - with a much less developed line than Brets - have had a new codex. Yes BT got folded into space marines, but their connection with that book is pretty strong, and they only had the one book ever.

The worst I could see happening to Brets is a digital book only release, but even that i doubt. Tombkings got a book, and I can't imagine their old book prompted more sales than the Brets'.

Instead, my guess is that sales for the line hum on well enough that there hasn't been pressure to renew it (unlike necrons or dark eldar). If they are dropped, it will be a brand new move for gw.

This thread is not about Zweischeid's false assumptions about Empire sales. Can we stop this?

 Kroothawk wrote:
This thread is not about Zweischeid's false assumptions about Empire sales. Can we stop this?

Sound advice there - so yes, please!

Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

The problem with that is BT really were Black and White codex Marines with a couple of differences. The only real similarity Brettonians and Empire share are both being humans. The army structure between the two is entirely different. They really are different armies, much more so tha even current Space Marine books.

Not saying it's not going to happen, and it makes sense if they're consolidating armies as previous rumours suggested. An Armies of Men book makes sense, as do Undead, Elven Kingdoms, Forces of Chaos, etc. But using the example of Black Templars is just wrong, since the circumstances of it happening are different. That was a one off removal of an unneeded extra Space Marine codex. This is part of an overall consolidation of all Warhammer armies, according to previous rumours.

This sounds like a game of Chinese whispers which stem from ANOTHER rumour that the next series of army books (i.e. 9th edition) will be condensed into volumes or 2-3 or even 4 armies in one tome. Whilst the rumour of this happened does come from a reliable source (namely 75hastings69) the application of this to the Bretonnian army book on this time scale with this much specificity holds little to no merit. It appears that they are speculating on how the volumes would be condensed (whether under themes, race or geography) which has already been discussed to death with little or no progress.

So everyone can move on from here, as this rumour about squatting Brets is pure speculation.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

I'm not saying it's not possible, however I think there's a big leap from doing that with BT and doing it with Brets. BT are basically just marines. It is totally conceivable to me you could just lump all marines in to one codex and have special rules for each chapter or supplements (like they had in 2nd edition).

Bretonnians however I think are quite unique from the Empire. There are no crossover troops or anything like Marine armies. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm not sure BT being swallowed by Marines is equivalent to Brets being swallowed by Empire.

I can clearly remember the release of 5th ed, with the relaunched Brets (who up until then were an insanely rare army, barely covered in any books or model ranges) and totally reworked Lizardmen. Due to their inclusion in the box both armies became instant hits and Brets especially with their prayers and lance formation cav everywhere were a very popular army with 6 or 7 armies of them at our local club alone. Interest has died out over them because they have not been promoted effectively for the 17 years since...

Yeah, I tend to be of the opinion that almost all armies have the potential to be popular if they're pushed effectively, and all armies have the potential to have poor sales if you leave them on the shelf for 11 years without an update or anything to push them in to the limelight.

Brets are the most unique army in fantasy. I've got a small force, and I have seen a force of them in action. They are also one of the great armies. They have probably the best cavalry in the game, and deadliest charge move with the lance. They are still usable, and nothing like the Empire. Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress. Yes there is medieval stuff in there, but it's more arthurian.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Brets are the most unique army in fantasy. I've got a small force, and I have seen a force of them in action. They are also one of the great armies. They have probably the best cavalry in the game, and deadliest charge move with the lance. They are still usable, and nothing like the Empire. Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress. Yes there is medieval stuff in there, but it's more arthurian.

When they were good, they were more Arthurian. The last Army Book replaced that with the "French people who suck" theme.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress.

Uh ? Isn't Arthurian legends just the perfect representative of medieval stories ?
Also, don't Bretonians reference other medieval stuff, like La Chanson de Roland ?


Also, if I remember well, even when I started WHFB, back when the starter box was Bretonians vs Lizarmen (with a paper tower included in the box ), I remember Bretonians has having French-sounding names. Well, actually the name were translated in French, so of course they were French-sounding, but Bordeleau ? Lionesse ? Quenelle ? Even the maps I remember as looking like a heavily distorted France. Just like Empire, for some reason, looked German .

I don't see how commenting on the past of Bretonnians lore is really contributing to the discussion, but again I'll bite.

The distinction Alex was getting at was historical vs. mythological. Now the entire point of most WHFB armies from the start was that they are pretty much just a lot of both fantasy and historical lore thrown in a blender, though the mix varies. This works for the aesthetic as well as the fluff. So arguing either way is unproductive, because the real answer is: it's both, with some Monty Python thrown in for good measure.

The Bretonnian army wasn't originally anything like it's current form. They were powdered wig aristocrats more akin to pre-French Revolution France rather than a bunch of knights. However they retconned, scaled the timeline back and fleshed them out into a more well rounded combat force based upon Arthurian and Charlemagnian lore. It's that blend which afforded it both the mystical foreign factor (to get people interested) and the familiar (to make the lore more recognizable and easier to digest).

On a personal note: All I can hope for with a new release of anything Bretonnian is that they retain the current artwork and aesthetic rather than throwing us the current pseudo water-colour distorted artwork of the Empire, OK and Lizardmen books or the cartoony over-the-topness of some of the new models (see: Karl Franz and his loyal mount puffy-chicken, and Sleepy: the DE war hydra).

 Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:
Empire was actually one of the better FB sellers until the current book hit.

So that's not it.

No it wasn't. Ronnie Renton left 2008..ish. Shortly after the 7th Edition Empire book. Knowing that Empire was the bottom of the pile, he decided to not make a version for Kings of War (in Miniatures).

Early Kings of War is a good indicator for what sells and what doesn't. It gave rule, but no miniatures, for Empire-style armies ("inviting" people to use miniatures from other manufacturers), but made miniatures for profitable lines (Elves, Orcs, etc..) that could be used with other manufacturers' rules (e.g. GW),

Empire were a loss-maker with their 6th Edition book. They were a loss maker with their 7th Edition book. They are a loss maker with their 8th Edition, despite having more new kits and development resource thrown at them than Tau and Eldar together.

Why should Brets be different?

That explains why the Perrys are expanding their medieval range.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/gw-changes-stores-closing-and-armies-no.html?m=1

 mjl7atlas wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/gw-changes-stores-closing-and-armies-no.html?m=1

As far as I can tell, his "anonymous source" is a user on BoW called redben, who was then subsequently re-quoted all over the shop.

Firstly, the majority of that list appears to be rubbish, secondly, the rumour of WHFB armies getting rolled into a few "themed" books has been kicking around for ages and dovetails much better with an idea of Bretts losing their own book than being squatted entirely. (Although, as one of only two WHFB armies I'd likely ever start, that might just be optimism talking)

When reading articles about politics, I always mentally substute the phrase "anonymous source" with "my arse". I think the same approach works here.

 marielle wrote:


That explains why the Perrys are expanding their medieval range.

They Perrys do what they do because like other ex-GW-creative staff (e.g. Rick Priestely), they have an anti-competition clause upon leaving. They aren't allowed to do (more profitable) high-fantasy (just yet).

But yes, by the same logic, the Natfka rumour doesn't make sense (to me).

Wood Elves and Khemri should get updates in time (likely/hopefully this year). They are "fantasy" enough to be worth it, whereas Bretonnians aren't.

I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

Not to mention that the "anonymous source" from natfka claims all German GW stores will be closed, which (in my humble opinion) is a totally bonkers misreading of the announced closure/down-sizing of the German regional HQ.

I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

Priestely doesn't anymore, which is why he started Gates of Antares early 2013. I think it was one of the BoW video-interviews he did promoting that Kickstarter? I remember him saying he wasn't allowed to to sci-fi and fantasy for many years due to some clause (hence did historical at Warlord Games), and took a stab with Gates of Antares once that clause lapsed.

It is only my guess that the Perry's would have similar issues (and other sculptors, e.g. Juan Diaz, who does Japanese Historicals now?).

On the other hand, Ronnie Renton of, now, Mantic Games obviously "got out" without an anti-competition clause, though he wasn't a sculptor or game designer (and ironically the far more dangerous "future-competitor"). So it's not a given, I guess.

 Zweischneid wrote:


I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

This is, of course, Great News®™!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

Priestely doesn't anymore, which is why he started Gates of Antares early 2013. I think it was one of the BoW video-interviews he did promoting that Kickstarter? I remember him saying he wasn't allowed to to sci-fi and fantasy for many years due to some clause (hence did historical at Warlord Games), and took a stab with Gates of Antares once that clause lapsed.

It is only my guess that the Perry's would have similar issues (and other sculptors, e.g. Juan Diaz, who does Japanese Historicals now?).

On the other hand, Ronnie Renton of, now, Mantic Games obviously "got out" without an anti-competition clause, though he wasn't a sculptor or game designer (and ironically the far more dangerous "future-competitor"). So it's not a given, I guess.

That would fit for him, considering his position at GW when he left.

I would be more surprised if the Perrys are similarly restricted, as they now effectively freelance for them, and it must be nearly impossible to pin down what does or does not constitute a breach, if CHS vs GW has taught us anything, it's how specific something has to be to be protectable.

I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals, or feel that's a niche they can better exploit than any outside limit.

"Non-Competes" are a bit more specific (usually) and a bit more cut and dry than IP suits though...

 Alpharius wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

This is, of course, Great News®™!

What do you want?

I've already offered to bet a year of DCM against anyone doubting my logic. Nobody so far had the balls. You're up to it Alphy?

No Brets in 2014, You'll sponsor me for 2015, a new Brets book in 2014, I'll sponsor you for 2015. How 'bout it?

We can set longer dates, but it might be tedious to track it.

 Alpharius wrote:
"Non-Competes" are a bit more specific (usually) and a bit more cut and dry than IP suits though...

I honestly don't know how you'd phrase it though?

"Don't sculpt anything on dragons, unicorns or any other fantasy mount"

"Ok, here's my sculpt of a bloke riding a winged lizard. "

"But that's a dragon!"

"Kindly produce a source that objectively and empirically defines what the differences are between a dragon and flying lizard are, and then show me how my sculpt isn't a flying lizard."

"...."

Plus, anti competes have to demonstrate harm to the business, and with something that is as subjective a purchase for the consumer as miniatures, you'd have the devil's own job proving that a customer who bought their model would have purchased yours, and only yours, if it didn't exist, as the consumer may not like your version and would never have bought it regardless.

Largely playing devils advocate here, but I have direct experience of this (worked for an employer who had me under one, who was suing my predecessor for breaching hers, and I left that job to work for the competition. My boss got nowhere, but I had to be sure!) and I know how hard it would be to pin them down.

If anything does happen i am guessing they will merge them with other factions.

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

Splendid attempt at a strawmanning there Zwei.

A preference =\= not enjoying something else.

Also I actually thought that was the reason they left anyway, that they wanted to do more historicals as that was their passion, and working exclusively for GW didn't allow that.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

You do read like you just conjure all your ideas straight from your own arsehole sometimes.

Sometimes?

jk

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

You do read like you just conjure all your ideas straight from your own arsehole sometimes.

I think he just likes arguing with people. Different strokes, I guess.

Anyways, if the rumors about GW starting to do compendium army books are true, I wouldn't be surprised if the Brettonians get rolled into a Kingdoms of Men book, though I'd rather see them included in a "non-aligned" compendium with Wood Elves and other neutral forces.

~Tim?

I'm not big on the WHF lore, but is there enough to do a "neutral" book? Aside from the wood elves what, lizardmen? I personally hope the Bretonians do indeed get a new book and plastic crack.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
I'm not bog on the WHF lore, but is there enough to do a "neutral" book? Aside from the wood elves what, lizardmen? I personally hope the Bretonians do indeed get a new book and plastic crack.

I wouldn't say "neutral", but rather more "elemental" would work for Wood Elves, Lizardmen, and Ogre Kingdoms.
All three are forces that aren't strictly good or evil, but rather they are just there.

I'm thinking what we're seeing though is factions which still have kind of a weird set-up(Bretonnians and their mandatory cavalry, Wood Elves with their overabundance of archers and the Eternal Guard which are a Core or Special choice depending on the leader choice still being metal/Finecast) or older kits for some of their Core choices(Tomb Kings with their skeletal cavalry and infantry) being pulled back to be sold direct/special order only.

Aren't High Elf infantry being done the same way? I know that Lothern Sea Guard are only available via Direct Sales but not sure about Archers/Spearmen/Silver Helms. I never see boxes of them at my local GW but the independents have them...which really doesn't mean much, as it could simply be leftover stock that has not sold.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I'd contend its more likely that the Perrys just prefer sculpting historicals,

Really? After working for Games Workshop for 30+ years?

They must be pretty miserable having spent a full professional life sculpting things they don't enjoy sculpting.

We know they love historical settings, it's how one of them blew his on hand off... The Perrys are military history nuts, they love it all. The suggestion that they must have been horribly upset making fantasy stuff is horse gak, to suggest that they love making historical wargaming products is due to their well documented and self confessed interests.

Someone I know well is a good friend of the Perrys, having been involved with them in military re-enactment stuff. So, can absolutely confirm that this is the case.

Although.. TBH, one look at their website, and the effort and detail they put into their sculpts (which are surely some of the best on the market) would confirm that regardless.

 Zweischneid wrote:
They Perrys do what they do because like other ex-GW-creative staff (e.g. Rick Priestely), they have an anti-competition clause upon leaving. They aren't allowed to do (more profitable) high-fantasy (just yet)

According to their website the day job is working for GW.

Have I missed something and the Perry's no longer work for GW? I thought they exclusively worked on the LOTR/Hobbit range for the past few years but were still at GW.

willb2064 wrote:
Have I missed something and the Perry's no longer work for GW? I thought they exclusively worked on the LOTR/Hobbit range for the past few years but were still at GW.

I understood them to be 'guns for hire' now, that GW bring in to work on certain lines, and that this arrangement had been in place for quite a while.

Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

However GW cant get over its skulls and other grimdark overlay. It works with chaos, somewhat works with the Imperium and flat out fails with Empire and Bretonnians.

Empire looked right before they had a skull makeover. Bretonnians looked right when they were more Morte D'Arthur shining knights and less peasant crushing grimdark.

WFB needs something closer to a white hat faction. A light grey would do, and High Elves arent enough.

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Do the Perry's still sculpt Fantasy for GW any more? I thought the majority of their GW output was LoTR/Hobbit stuff these days.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Wow! Some people are so shielded from the real world!

Firstly, if fantasy humans didn't sell they wouldn't have been included in most of the Warhammer starter boxes and secondly have a look outside your little GW fanboy world, you'll find that the Perry historical lines are some of the most popular out there and the GW bits they do are more likely the pin money side projects.

Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Zweischneid wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Appears to state opinion as fact.

When challenged, claims was always opinion and never fact.

When someone else makes opposite claim with just as much evidence, denies it by stating opinion as fact again.

Bravo.

Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Appears to state opinion as fact.

When challenged, claims was always opinion and never fact.

When someone else makes opposite claim with just as much evidence, denies it by stating opinion as fact again.

Bravo.

Again. Double-standards.

If Orlanth says "Fantasy humans sell" (stated, as you claim, as a "fact" and without citation), I respond on the same "level", assuming we are all discussing things on the basis of reasonably available information and without first-hand insight into either GW's or Perry's accounts.

The fact that you keep bringing this up to derail my side of the argument, but not, say, Orlanth equally "simplified" claim demonstrates your bias in this. I don't see the need for absolutely academically correct citation in every single post, especially if I already said this very thread, that this is not what I intend to do, unless everyone adheres to this principle.

I heard GW is going to bring Space Marines into WFB. It's a rumor and could be true. Period. You can't argue against it. Period.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I heard GW is going to bring Space Marines into WFB. It's a rumor and could be true. Period. You can't argue against it. Period.

I am assuming this is hyperbole?

Either way, how does this apply to "Fantasy humans are selling well" any differently compared to "Fantasy humans are not selling well"?

Both points can be argued, including pointing to other companies (Perry, Mantic Games) have been cited to support one side or the other.

If you are not convinced by my argument, fine. I can live with not being convincing.

But to demand "unshakable proof" for the argument of "Fantasy humans don't sell well", while blithely accepting the argument of "Fanasy humans sell just fine" is a biased prejudice that makes any discussion impossible.


That said, adding some type of "steam-punk-space-marine"-style unit is not the worst idea to get the Empire (or Brets?) out of the red numbers. It's what works, obviously, whereas ... as argued previously, faux-historical Fantasy humans (in my very humble logical conclusion) don't.

At the very least, it's a lot more plausible than Brets ever getting a new book

Fantasy humans can be said to not be selling well because Fantasy isn't selling well. We know the entire game range has fallen very low in sales recently. And to add to that, we also know GW's entire product range has decreased in sales over several recent years.

But fantasy humans not selling well as a percentage of fantasy sales? I've now asked this question of several former GW design folks, who all agreed that Empire has always been in the top 5 armies and that Brets were certainly top 3 during their re-imagining during the release of 5th edition.

If the Brets get the treatment, it will be a result of lack of promotion and a number of other GW policies on the wider landscape, rather than players disinterest. They are getting the SoB treatment, so interest in them has waned. It's the same self fulfilling prophecy as GW's 'astonishment' at the sales of Space Marines, which are promoted on everything they do.

Space marines in fantasy. It's not impossible. I remember the old Chronopia game, which had such kind of an army, which actually was space marines with swords, axes and maces and a living god emperor.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Back on topic.

Fantasy humans do sell and are/wwere popular.

Because you say so?

They don't.

If the Perrys are truly in it for the "love of the historical", it's still a "passion-project" supplemented (and possibly subsidized) by doing skull-encrusted Elves for GW that do make money.

Oh my God, is he still on about this? 4 pages of the thread and it's been one guy saying "nuh uh, guys, fantasy humans don't sell because I say so". Seriously. Humans sell. I've bought them. I have 5 friends in a SMALL gaming town that have bought them. That's just Empire. I know another 4 guys who bought Bretonnia. I realize my area is a small slice of the pie, but when there are about 15-20 players in the area and there are a collective 9 human armies among those 20, that shows far more proof than your views of "because I said so." But, I won't convince you, just as nobody else will, because you have your own bubble. Keep on living your psychedelic delusions where humans are a smear on the foot of every fantasy enthusiast.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Fantasy humans can be said to not be selling well because Fantasy isn't selling well. We know the entire game range has fallen very low in sales recently. And to add to that, we also know GW's entire product range has decreased in sales over several recent years.

But fantasy humans not selling well as a percentage of fantasy sales? I've now asked this question of several former GW design folks, who all agreed that Empire has always been in the top 5 armies and that Brets were certainly top 3 during their re-imagining during the release of 5th edition.

If the Brets get the treatment, it will be a result of lack of promotion and a number of other GW policies on the wider landscape, rather than players disinterest. They are getting the SoB treatment, so interest in them has waned. It's the same self fulfilling prophecy as GW's 'astonishment' at the sales of Space Marines, which are promoted on everything they do.

Well, I've talked to stores and ex-GW guys, and Empire (and, presumably Brets, though I didn't inquire about them) were always bottom, despite many massive (costly and futile) attempts to boost them.

The best placing I ever found for them online was 8th, though I think that is "higher" than they usually rank.

I'm finding it pretty hard to find any evidence of relative Warhammer army popularity. A couple of forums had polls which were pretty evenly spread but also very small number of participants (I think I've seen more armies in my local store than participated in most polls ). One poll Empire was equal 3rd with Bret :O

The pie chart you posted was for a single store and they included no data to say how they got their numbers or the absolute value of the numbers, as such, I don't think it's any more conclusive than walking in to any FLGS and asking the manager what army is most collected. In other words, it's not remotely conclusive. Tomb Kings are most popular? I barely see any Tomb Kings armies around here.

The reason you're copping so much criticism on your "opinion" of human fantasy armies being unpopular is people don't agree with your assessment.

Of course it's not black and white of being supported and it'll sell... but if it's not supported it sure as hell won't sell.

Lets use myself as an example, and I'm sure this would be true of a lot of people. Of all the armies I collect, I 1) Started Lizardmen largely because they were in the boxed set and my friend had already taken the Brets (I wanted the Brets myself, but he'd bought the box and started painting them before I started). 2) Started Tyranids when their 3rd ed Codex was released, and all of my major Tyranid buys have been associated with new Codices (except most my Genestealers are from the old Space Hulk boxed set). 3) Started Space Wolves in 2nd edition for no good reason, but bought most my SW stuff when the next Codex came out. 4) Started Brets when their "current" Army Book came out. 5) Started Wood Elves when their "current" Army Book came out. 6) Started Orcs and Goblins when they were in the boxed set (alongside Empire, which my friend started at the same time), also bought most my Night Goblins because of Battle for Skull Pass. 7) Very briefly started (then dropped) an Ork army at pretty much exactly the same time GorkaMorka was out.

If an army doesn't get good support, new Army Books, new models, being featured prominently (a good example for Brets would be the "Full Tilt" game). And it does have to be "good" support, the current Tyranid Codex hasn't inspired me to restart my Tyranids because half the models I like are terrible (I own a lot of Stealers, Raveners, a few Lictors... basically all the crappy things ).

Brets might not get another book, they might, I personally won't see either outcome as being indicative of the popularity of fantasy humans. GW are stupid enough to drop an army with potential, they're also stupid enough to botch the relaunch of a potentially popular army and they're also just as likely to continue with an army that is not popular.

The "fantasy humans are not popular" thing doesn't gel with me unless you have some conclusive evidence of it, as it goes against my own observation of fantasy humans being popular.

Faeit 212 thinks the sky is falling withthe full 100% squatting of bretonians, wood elves, beastmen, and tomb kings. All 4 completely removed from the game and future production halted.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Faeit 212 thinks the sky is falling withthe full 100% squatting of bretonians, wood elves, beastmen, and tomb kings. All 4 completely removed from the game and future production halted.

Which is also unlikely

40K Radio wrote:I don't know which is worse: the website saying Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Bretonnians are being discontinued or the people believing it. Calm down folks. According to our pretty damn reliable source Wood Elves are just around the corner. Enjoy your weekend.
-Rik

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=642837509085441&id=147396461962884&stream_ref=10


I am inclined to go with 40K Radio on past performance with Wood Elves possible the next army after Dwarfs (in Q2?).

Armies of Men, Armies of Bad Men, Armies of Weirdos, Armies of Bad Weirdos.

WFB streamlined.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't say "neutral", but rather more "elemental" would work for Wood Elves, Lizardmen, and Ogre Kingdoms.
All three are forces that aren't strictly good or evil, but rather they are just there.

So lizardmen are “not strictly good” but empire is “strictly good”, just because empire is humans and lizardmen are not ?
Empire citizen mostly either care only for themselves, or for the empire as a whole, or for humanity as a whole, but they definitely do not care about the lizardmen just like the lizardmen do not care about them.
Except that some citizens of the empire are regularly trying to steal artifacts from the lizardmen, while lizardmen do not invade the empire. Once in a while, a slann might create an earthquake in the empire, but never out of ill will or greed !
Citizens of the empire are much more likely to stab each other in the back, turn to chaos, be greedy bastards, commit useless bloodshed out of zealotry, and all that, than lizardmen.
I don't see how even High Elves could be considered more “strictly good” than lizardmen, actually.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Well, I've talked to stores and ex-GW guys, and Empire (and, presumably Brets, though I didn't inquire about them) were always bottom, despite many massive (costly and futile) attempts to boost them.

The best placing I ever found for them online was 8th, though I think that is "higher" than they usually rank.

Spoiler:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
From the man who put up a chart with Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms as a major seller... Priceless...

The new Ogre stuff sold pretty well where I live. The old stuff didn't, though. Too much floating around on eBay. Still, I haven't seen a TK army on a game table in... well... ever.

But, yea, I got a laugh out of that chart, too.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Faeit 212 thinks the sky is falling withthe full 100% squatting of bretonians, wood elves, beastmen, and tomb kings. All 4 completely removed from the game and future production halted.

Which is also unlikely

40K Radio wrote:I don't know which is worse: the website saying Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Bretonnians are being discontinued or the people believing it. Calm down folks. According to our pretty damn reliable source Wood Elves are just around the corner. Enjoy your weekend.
-Rik

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=642837509085441&id=147396461962884&stream_ref=10


I am inclined to go with 40K Radio on past performance with Wood Elves possible the next army after Dwarfs (in Q2?).

I could see GW thinking about it and leaking it to test for community backlash. A more likely scenario is they move those armies to fw, continue to update and produce, but no longer stock in stores and make them special order like sisters of battle.

FW are too busy hand casting their precious FineMarines™ To keep up with the Fantasy ranges they do have, I doubt moving others across would result in any sort of update any time soon?

 schadenfreude wrote:
Faeit 212 thinks the sky is falling withthe full 100% squatting of bretonians, wood elves, beastmen, and tomb kings. All 4 completely removed from the game and future production halted.

Well, he doesn't necessarily think that. If you look at his rumour round-up, he rates that one two out of five stars. In fact, from what I've seen, most people seem to be various shades of unconvinced on that one.

 Zweischneid wrote:

40K Radio wrote:I don't know which is worse: the website saying Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Bretonnians are being discontinued or the people believing it. Calm down folks. According to our pretty damn reliable source Wood Elves are just around the corner. Enjoy your weekend.
-Rik

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=642837509085441&id=147396461962884&stream_ref=10


I am inclined to go with 40K Radio on past performance with Wood Elves possible the next army after Dwarfs (in Q2?).

Ah, that's nice to hear. Yeah, 40K radio is generally quite accurate, so I guess this guy has been discredited, somewhat. Thanks for sharing.

GW is slowly going to cut more and more now that their world has come crashing down. They need to stall some more to manipulate the numbers for "positive" financial reports to the shareholders. In the next few years a lot more shocking stuff than Britonians are gonna get the axe.

I guess my plastic Sisters of Battle is looking less and less likely now. :(

 Harriticus wrote:
GW is slowly going to cut more and more now that their world has come crashing down. They need to stall some more to manipulate the numbers for "positive" financial reports to the shareholders. In the next few years a lot more shocking stuff than Britonians are gonna get the axe.

I am pretty sure PWC would catch them manipulating numbers. GW is only pennies in the bucket of revenue PWC has. If there is a change in auditor and you see them putting a mom & pop firm then I will be more than willing to believe they are cooking the books. The fact they have a big 4 firm auditing such a small company speaks volumes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as an FYI PWC is the bees knees of public accounting firms. Deloitte is great and all but they are quantity over quality. EY is great if health care is your industry. KPMG is great and have been rolling out their electronic working papers for the last couple of years while everyone else is on v2 or v3. PWC is the most technically competent and prides itself on a higher quality of audit work. Opt here are other smaller firms like McG's or GT but they don't hold a candle to the big 4 in terms of resources or knowledge.

boyd wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
GW is slowly going to cut more and more now that their world has come crashing down. They need to stall some more to manipulate the numbers for "positive" financial reports to the shareholders. In the next few years a lot more shocking stuff than Britonians are gonna get the axe.

I am pretty sure PWC would catch them manipulating numbers. GW is only pennies in the bucket of revenue PWC has. If there is a change in auditor and you see them putting a mom & pop firm then I will be more than willing to believe they are cooking the books. The fact they have a big 4 firm auditing such a small company speaks volumes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as an FYI PWC is the bees knees of public accounting firms. Deloitte is great and all but they are quantity over quality. EY is great if health care is your industry. KPMG is great and have been rolling out their electronic working papers for the last couple of years while everyone else is on v2 or v3. PWC is the most technically competent and prides itself on a higher quality of audit work. Opt here are other smaller firms like McG's or GT but they don't hold a candle to the big 4 in terms of resources or knowledge.

He doesn't mean fudging the books, he means cutting anything that isn't highly profitable to cut costs and make it look like the company is still ahead. (I'm assuming, it's what they've been doing for a while now.)
Less product sold means less cashflow but if they stop spending money too then they can make it look ok to people glancing at their finacial reports.

I think he meant "manipulate" not as "cooking the books", but rather even more aggressively cutting expenses to keep from looking less profitable overall (even if it hurts the business).

That's what I meant yes, and it's what's GW's going to do. They're going to cut things based purely on numbers without understanding the long-term consequences of how it will affect their market. Huge amounts of fantasy products/races, SoB, LOTR, medium-sized 40k kits, printed books are all gonna go bye bye in the next few years. Meanwhile GW will try to make FW products standard in hopes of their higher-end kits will sell more (i.e. see GW heavily markets Titans in the future) and will turn the BL into exclusively producing cheap hardcover limited edition anthology novella BS and phase out TPB's to justify absurdly high costs for said books. Ultimately BL will de facto shut down as GW phases out any new novels in favor of cheaply made overpriced reprints of their extensive past publications. WD will Balkanize into many separate periodicals all priced the same, in hopes customers will be dumb enough to pay 2-3 times the price for the same product they got before. This will extend to codex's as well, with "supplements" and "dataslates" becoming vital to operate an army and released shortly after/along with any codex release. "Part 1" and "Part 2" codex releases will emerge as well. I suspect down the line all brick-and-mortar stores are going to go too, GW already more or less has ended their stores as it is with this one man limited operating hours no gaming nonsense. Ultimately, I foresee an end to Warhammer Fantasy entirely as the last final desperate act of GW along with other armies like Dark Eldar and Tau getting terminated.

Keep in mind since the LOTR bubble GW has largely been manipulating numbers like this through price hikes, heavy cuts (stores, staff, specialist games, etc.), and short-sighted policy changes (deliberately trying to drive away gamers, manipulating what's in a model box/army books to force people to buy more, etc.) rather than actually growing a sustainable business model. However GW has hit the absolute limit of what it can cut to still look outwardly in good shape, so they're going to get more desperate

Basically this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The Tyranids dex is a glimpse of the future in terms of quality. It was designed around spiting costumers and smaller businesses by phasing out third party products without GW having to produce said products themselves, and pushes gamers to buy even more models to be even remotely competitive.

So sayeth the prophet of doom

 Harriticus wrote:
That's what I meant yes, and it's what's GW's going to do. They're going to cut things based purely on numbers without understanding the long-term consequences of how it will affect their market. Huge amounts of fantasy products/races, SoB, LOTR, medium-sized 40k kits, printed books are all gonna go bye bye in the next few years. Meanwhile GW will try to make FW products standard in hopes of their higher-end kits will sell more (i.e. see GW heavily markets Titans in the future) and will turn the BL into exclusively producing cheap hardcover limited edition anthology novella BS and phase out TPB's to justify absurdly high costs for said books. Ultimately BL will de facto shut down as GW phases out any new novels in favor of cheaply made overpriced reprints of their extensive past publications. WD will Balkanize into many separate periodicals all priced the same, in hopes customers will be dumb enough to pay 2-3 times the price for the same product they got before. This will extend to codex's as well, with "supplements" and "dataslates" becoming vital to operate an army and released shortly after/along with any codex release. "Part 1" and "Part 2" codex releases will emerge as well. I suspect down the line all brick-and-mortar stores are going to go too, GW already more or less has ended their stores as it is with this one man limited operating hours no gaming nonsense. Ultimately, I foresee an end to Warhammer Fantasy entirely as the last final desperate act of GW along with other armies like Dark Eldar and Tau getting terminated.

I'd say that's what GW has already done. Cost cutting and price raising have been the solution for years. This is finally the year where the numbers have suffered for it. It's a little painful reading the report and seeing that they're planning on getting out of the funk with more of the same.

Keep in mind since the LOTR bubble GW has largely been manipulating numbers like this through price hikes, heavy cuts (stores, staff, specialist games, etc.), and short-sighted policy changes (deliberately trying to drive away gamers, manipulating what's in a model box/army books to force people to buy more, etc.) rather than actually growing a sustainable business model. However GW has hit the absolute limit of what it can cut to still look outwardly in good shape, so they're going to get more desperate

Cost cutting isn't always bad. GW cut a lot of fat, but they cut deep into their core at the same time. One man stores are a blight on any kind of sustainable business. GW stores should be able to support the hobby, and where they can't, GW should instead provide support to help LGS nurture the hobby. It's not anywhere near as clear as you paint the picture though - there was a combination of good decisions and bad decisions that have happened in cutting the fat since the LOTR bubble broke.

decker_cky wrote:
Cost cutting isn't always bad. GW cut a lot of fat, but they cut deep into their core at the same time. One man stores are a blight on any kind of sustainable business. GW stores should be able to support the hobby, and where they can't, GW should instead provide support to help LGS nurture the hobby. It's not anywhere near as clear as you paint the picture though - there was a combination of good decisions and bad decisions that have happened in cutting the fat since the LOTR bubble broke.

Since the LOTR bubble burst?
Sure
In the last couple of years?
All GW have been cutting lately is muscle and bone.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Since the LOTR bubble burst?
Sure
In the last couple of years?
All GW have been cutting lately is muscle and bone.

Don't disagree. The post I was replying to was making broad statements in the vein of cost cutting being a pure bad (false, the early cost cutting that moved GW back into the black seemed quite sensible), and was tracking that bad cost cutting right back to the LOTR bubble.

GW has cut a lot of core and goodwill generating parts of their Hobby(tm) over the past few years. At some point, management will change and the policy will be to grow the hobby, but it looks like it will be a very painful transition to get on that path again. The fact is, that GW needs there to be healthy gaming communities to grow the game organically. That means that they need some attention on keeping veterans, and growing gaming clubs again.

decker_cky wrote:
GW has cut a lot of core and goodwill generating parts of their Hobby(tm) over the past few years. At some point, management will change and the policy will be to grow the hobby, but it looks like it will be a very painful transition to get on that path again. The fact is, that GW needs there to be healthy gaming communities to grow the game organically. That means that they need some attention on keeping veterans, and growing gaming clubs again.

What makes you think GW will do this instead of continuing to run themselves into the ground?

That there is what they need to do to turn it around but they have shown time and again they don't care about any of that. They think they are selling toys to kids, nerds are gross, adults who buy their product are weirdos and that we are all sheep who will buy anything they produce. They also think that very few people ever actually play the game, we are not gamers we are collectors. We don't need a community to collect things.

So far GWs reactions to the latest report have been to continue on the same path but faster than before.

Mick A wrote:Firstly, if fantasy humans didn't sell they wouldn't have been included in most of the Warhammer starter boxes

I just want to address this point for a second - where are you getting the idea that "fantasy humans" have been in most of th3 starter sets from?

4th edition - High Elves vs Goblins
5th edition - Brets vs Lizardmen
6th edition - Empire vs Orcs & Goblins
7th edition - Dwarves vs Goblins
8th edition - High Elves vs Skaven

AFAIK there wasn't a starter set for 3rd ed, which leaves "fantasy humans" with twonslots out of ten, and not for the last 2 editions. Orcs & Goblins are, in fact, the most common component of a starter set, in terms of race.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I guess my plastic Sisters of Battle is looking less and less likely now. :(

Why? They still need to make models, that's one of their main things. Maybe we won't get the whole range upgraded to plastic, but I don't see why some plastics for the Sisters are so unlikely.

 Troike wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I guess my plastic Sisters of Battle is looking less and less likely now. :(

Why? They still need to make models, that's one of their main things. Maybe we won't get the whole range upgraded to plastic, but I don't see why some plastics for the Sisters are so unlikely.

They most likely won't make model, especially plastics, for lines that aren't selling as well. Plastic molds are expensive, why spend hundreds of thousands on SoB molds for an entire army that won't pay for themselves for another 20 years when you can spend half that paying for molds for a few new kits for space marine chapter X which will pay for themselves in one tenth the time?

 jonolikespie wrote:
They most likely won't make model, especially plastics, for lines that aren't selling as well.

Their digital codex sold well, so GW can see that there's sufficient interest in the SoB.

And the reason the SoB line didn't sell well was because it was all-metal and direct-order only. Of course it's had issues.

 jonolikespie wrote:
when you can spend half that paying for molds for a few new kits for space marine chapter X which will pay for themselves in one tenth the time?

By that logic, why do anything except Space Marines? Every army gets model updates, regardless of popularity. The Sisters only lack such updates due to modelling issues, issues which may now be possible to fix.

 Troike wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
They most likely won't make model, especially plastics, for lines that aren't selling as well.

Their digital codex sold well, so GW can see that there's sufficient interest in the SoB.

And the reason the SoB line didn't sell well was because it was all-metal and direct-order only. Of course it's had issues.

I know that. You know that. Heck, we ALL know that. But GW doesn't know that.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I know that. You know that. Heck, we ALL know that. But GW doesn't know that.

How do we know that they don't know that? For all we know, they may know.

They have tried to get the Sisters into plastic before, so they do want to upgrade the SoB model range. This in itself would imply that they're aware that plastics would be an improvement over their current situation.

Troike it's all well and good to apply logic to a situation and assume GW will do what would in all likelihood net them greater sales/revenue, but GW have a long track record of doing just the opposite, paying a dividend and calling it a day.

Though they also have a track record of releasing new models for armies, even when such a release was arguably a bit "iffy" (e.g, DE, apparently the Necrons at some point). All I'm theorising here is that they'll continue their default behaviour, especially since they've attempted to update the SoB models before anyway.

But, ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see. Personally, I'm not expecting to hear anything substantial for a while anyway. Maybe at the end of this year.

 Dysartes wrote:

Mick A wrote:Firstly, if fantasy humans didn't sell they wouldn't have been included in most of the Warhammer starter boxes

I just want to address this point for a second - where are you getting the idea that "fantasy humans" have been in most of th3 starter sets from?

4th edition - High Elves vs Goblins
5th edition - Brets vs Lizardmen
6th edition - Empire vs Orcs & Goblins
7th edition - Dwarves vs Goblins
8th edition - High Elves vs Skaven

AFAIK there wasn't a starter set for 3rd ed, which leaves "fantasy humans" with twonslots out of ten, and not for the last 2 editions. Orcs & Goblins are, in fact, the most common component of a starter set, in terms of race.

Uh, no...that's two out of five spots. They appeared in two boxes out of five. You're including all slots in each box instead of each box as its own thing. Also, rumor is Empire for 9th, which would give them a resounding "half". Greenskins get a better deal, but since 6th was orcs only, 4th&7th were both goblin only. Book-wise it puts empire in 2nd (if 9th rumors are correct), but race wise they're right up at the top.

I'd say maybe by the end of year 2083, or something. Earlier seems too early.
I mean, it took 8 years for the Apollo program to succeed in landing men safely on the moon, and then bring them back safely on earth. You can not expect GW to do something as difficult as Sisters of Battle plastic models any less than ten times slower than something as easy a landing men on the moon and then back, can you ?

This is a GREAT topic, but I don't have time to backread it today. Forgive me, I'm just subscribing in at this point to be plugged into the convo and I'll come back to it later.

I have lots of figure sculpting to do this weekend, but I HAVE a concern about Bretonnians and their future.

And I HAVE a question for those who collect Brets.

Are Brets likely to be discontinued outright? I LIKE the idea of the rumored "Kingdoms of Man" army book instead. If it contains Brets as a force selection side by side with Empire etc, that makes perfect sense to me.

But is the Bretonnian line getting squeezed out of production?

I'M CONSIDERING MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL LINE OF QUALITY BRETONNIAN STYLED FIGURES TO BE RELEASED IN 2015.

What is currently on the market is mostly of the wrong scale or otherwise not a good match. Which is odd considering that Medieval Knights and Peasants are fairly public domain material.

How many would see that as a product people would collect?

If GW leaves the Bret line unsupported because it doesn't make enough scratch for THEM, then it is a market Niche I'd happily fill if the buyership is there.

The "ARTHURIANA Miniature Line" could start right here and now in this thread....

Opinions?

Well, I wouldn't make promises, but I will state the following.

I have no strong desire to play WHFB right now, but do not exclude the possibility in the future (my fantasy itch get's largely scratched by Mierce just now)

If I were to start a WHFB army, it would absolutely be Bretts or WE.

If I were to start a WHFB army, I would absolutely seek out models I felt offered better value or better quality, I am not price averse if I feel the sculpt is good enough. I do not boycott GW, but I seldom find miniatures on offer from them I find of suitable quality for the price they ask.

If Bretts never receive another rules update! I am unlikely to ever start WHFB.

Do with that info what you will.

I know I like the Bretonnian line quite a bit, and would be sad to see them disappear.

IF that happens, I'd be happy to pick up miniatures that echo them for use in some system somewhere!

A kingdoms of men book would be interesting as it could include:

Brets
Kislev
Araby
Ind
Cathay
Tilea
Estalia

I'd go for it if the book was any good.

Puscifer wrote:
A kingdoms of men book would be interesting as it could include:

Brets
Kislev
Araby
Ind
Cathay
Tilea
Estalia

I'd go for it if the book was any good.

Could but wont, GW can't trademark something they don't have a model for so they simply wont put anything in their books that don't have models these days.

 Live2sculpt wrote:
This is a GREAT topic, but I don't have time to backread it today. Forgive me, I'm just subscribing in at this point to be plugged into the convo and I'll come back to it later.

I have lots of figure sculpting to do this weekend, but I HAVE a concern about Bretonnians and their future.

And I HAVE a question for those who collect Brets.

Are Brets likely to be discontinued outright? I LIKE the idea of the rumored "Kingdoms of Man" army book instead. If it contains Brets as a force selection side by side with Empire etc, that makes perfect sense to me.

But is the Bretonnian line getting squeezed out of production?

I'M CONSIDERING MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL LINE OF QUALITY BRETONNIAN STYLED FIGURES TO BE RELEASED IN 2015.

What is currently on the market is mostly of the wrong scale or otherwise not a good match. Which is odd considering that Medieval Knights and Peasants are fairly public domain material.

How many would see that as a product people would collect?

If GW leaves the Bret line unsupported because it doesn't make enough scratch for THEM, then it is a market Niche I'd happily fill if the buyership is there.

The "ARTHURIANA Miniature Line" could start right here and now in this thread....

Opinions?

I would be interested in a 3rd party not-Bretonnian line, but there are actually some alternatives. There's Fire Forge Games Teutonic Knights as a replacement for Bret Knights and Perry make good alternatives to Men at Arms and Peasant Archers.

The Teutonic Knights might be slightly smaller scale than Bret Knights, but frankly, they're a better scale. They're the same scale that Bret Knights USED to be back in, ummm, was it 5th edition? The current Bret knights horses are bigger than a standard cavalry base, so they won't even rank up unless you use the correct head behind the correct horse, which isn't always an option as they give you random heads in the box. Bret Knights are the perfect example of why embiggening things isn't always the best option.

If I were restarting a bret army, I'd probably go for the Teutonic Knights rather than GW's models.

I think any Bretonnian players need to have a long hard think about their wargaming, come out of the closet, and start collecting that historicals force that they obviously desire

As AllSeeingSkink has said, there are some wonderful miniatures from Perry and Fireforge (amongst half a dozen others) that would suit perfectly, and are literally an arm or a leg cheaper than their GW equivalents.

Puscifer wrote:
A kingdoms of men book would be interesting as it could include:

Brets
Kislev
Araby
Ind
Cathay
Tilea
Estalia

I'd go for it if the book was any good.

I would love that, as I could get all sorts of interesting armies. But GW will never do it because: 1. They don't have any figures for most of those ranges and 2. Those ranges are all taken straight out of history, so there's nothing they can copyright or protect.

A question for the people that play WHFB - is it at all possible to create an army with just what the company is offering in the Brettonia section? The choice seems rather limited.

As far as I remember with the BSB gone, no, Been a while since i've played fantasy, but I believe Bretonians must include the BSB in their army.

As for limited choises... always been like that ... though there usued to be a lil more flavor in the archers

m@a, archers, 5 types of knights, mounted scouts; relique and trebuchet ( and then people wonder why bret players have so many knights...)

 Alkasyn wrote:
A question for the people that play WHFB - is it at all possible to create an army with just what the company is offering in the Brettonia section? The choice seems rather limited.

Technically you could kitbash the Knights plastics into a BSB and general, you can still buy damsels, and some of the Special slots. However you can't get trebuchets or grail knights, which is a big hit. You COULD make an army, but it would be far from competitive.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Alkasyn wrote:
A question for the people that play WHFB - is it at all possible to create an army with just what the company is offering in the Brettonia section? The choice seems rather limited.

Technically you could kitbash the Knights plastics into a BSB and general, you can still buy damsels, and some of the Special slots. However you can't get trebuchets or grail knights, which is a big hit. You COULD make an army, but it would be far from competitive.

You can still buy the Grail Knights in Australia. Though it's now made me realise the Bret range is disappearing from the GW website If the Bretonnians go down the drain permanently, I'm going to tie up my last couple of armies and be done with GW for good. Rising prices, degrading rules and dropping armies I collect is the straw that will break this camel's back.

 Aerethan wrote:
However you can't get trebuchets or grail knights, which is a big hit.

And no reliquary ! Me sad panda !

I always liked how Bretonnia was basically medieval France + King Arthur; it was a great way to get people who did't know about Warhammer to hear about it, because they saw bowmen and men-at-arms and knights which were easily recognizable; I also thought it was funny that most of their characters were almost blatantly ripped off from medieval fantasy, like Bertrand le Brigand (Robin Hood) along with Hugo le Petit (Little John) and Gui le Gros (Friar Tuck), Repanse de Lyonesse (Jean d'Arc), Louen Leonceour (Richard the Lionhearted) etc.

Empire on the other hand was always strange because they went for landsknecht everywhere despite it being what amounted to the Holy Roman Empire, and Empire always felt too plain to me. Not sure why because I think a historically-painted Empire force looks striking on the tabletop, but they just seem too "average".

Then of course they screwed it up with the grimdark nonsense, although I do recall the original Bretonnia being closer to the current one (oppressive knights and oppressed peasants, and not so much King Arthur).

I never did get why they didn't expand Tilea and the other human nations; beyond Dogs of War there wasn't anything about them other than the fact you had Russians (Kislev), Romans (Tilea I believe?) and a few other nationalities that just were there without ever being fleshed out.

Maybe that's what they plan to do? Make a Kings of War-esque "kingdoms of men" army list that lets you build Empire or Bretonnia or whatnot with restrictions and some special rules based on what you pick?

Tilea was more renaissance Italy than Roman Italy.

Which could have been great, because you could have gone bat gak crazy with all sorts of Da Vinci inspired war machines.

The key reason they don't get expanded though is a question of play style, take Tilea as an example, you emphasise shootiness because of crossbows etc, then you start to tread in WE territory, go too crazy on the warmachines and you risk overlapping into Dwarf or Empire play.

In order to develop a new faction, it has to offer something new in terms of playstyle that is sufficiently in demand to support the expense of developing a new range through sales, and have fluff to fit.

That's why the Bretts have struggled to get an update i believe, I'm sure I've read somewhere that designers have struggled to find a tabletop identity for them. Personally, I'd smack the Empire over the nose with a rolled up newspaper and tell them to give their knights back, and refocus Empire to allow Bretts to be THE army for cavalry, as opposed to AN army for cavalry, but when the models are out, and people are using them in their armies, that's tricky to do.

Maybe you're right about Tilea, my memory is hazy I just remember a unit of Roman Legion-looking guys from Dogs of War, and my personal favorite the Conquistador-looking pikemen (Pizzaro's Pikemen? Something like that) which earned their gold several times over in my Dark Elf army back in the day.

Fair point about the identity, I'd rather see Empire and other human kingdoms amalgamated with options like I said above, with differing focuses based on which you want (so Empire = balanced, Bretonnia = more cavalry, Tilea = more shooty, etc.)

To be honest I would be shocked if they dropped Brets.
To me, they are the best human faction because I reckon most kids grow up thinking knights are cool, and thinking puffy pants are lame. I was much more familiar with the idea of knights and peasant bowmen growing up than I was the Holy Roman Empire, Landsknecht, primitive handguns and so on.

Still, if they do drop them, no reason people shouldn't buy up the perry brother's awesome WOTR plastics and play Kings of War with them.

Returning to the idea of reforming the Bretonnians as to approach a more Space Marine stule (something that maybe would make them look more "fantasy"), I mentioned the Chronopia Firstborn line of miniatures. Looking at the Avatars of War thread, I found some pictures from future plans of Felix for miniatures that are on the same direction:













That kind of knights I would like to see...

I've always felt that the head-statues is what detracted from Bretonnia the most. There's vast potential for them to be this badass knight army, but instead they look more like a floufy clown parade. It's reached the point where the only Bretonnian armies I really enjoy looking at are made by extensively supplementing the GW models with historical mini sets, and even more extensive use of freehand heraldry and patterns.

In short, it's become an army that only looks good in the hands of a master painter, which IMHO is a death sentence.

I absolutely agree with Corgan that a more accessible theme and look would help them reach the accessibility that Space Marines lend to the 40k line. And all it would need is dual-kits making the head statues and unnecessary adornments an optional attachment. Essentially allow the old Bretonnian adherents their classic look, while allowing a "grittier" Bretonnian force to make an entrance as well.

I recognized Fireforge and Perry lines. And they are good (Perry's WotR line is superb) but I was talking about making 'high fantasy' metals, not historic plastics.

Rather like making cleaned-up versions of 2nd-5th edition brets.

Oh well. I'll go take it elsewhere... I've Chaos Warriors to focus on...