AoS, sure..ill try it out. 150 Archy model? Pushing it but what the heck, its a centerpiece purchase. 200 USD for a 120 page BOOK. They have lost it. I mean it better have gold leaf print for that price. Pure insanity. AoS wont kill GW, GW will kill GW. I see myself as a whale. I can and have dropped a thousand USD at a time on this hobby, but even I see that price point as a complete ripoff. There are not enough whales in the ocean at this point. I see a sinking ship.

Another case of being sent to the Australian version of the GW website? I think so. Unless you're talking about the limited edition, in which case they always overinflate because of "exclusive" reasons.

 Grimskul wrote:
Another case of being sent to the Australian version of the GW website? I think so. Unless you're talking about the limited edition, in which case they always overinflate because of "exclusive" reasons.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battletome-Everchosen-Limited-Edition


Its real.

I think this is a case of a little more than over inflation.

I was trying to say that for the most part its par for the course for Gdubs. If Archaon being 150 (200 for us Canadians) didn't throw you off I'm surprised that the limited edition did. They seem to be doubling down on the price issue that plagued fantasy rather than making it accessible in AoS, it seems to generally be the case as well for their battletomes. Also considering that most of the other limited editions were similar in price, I'm surprised that this was the one tipped you over.

Anything that's 'limited edition' is a ripoff. Welcome to the world of collectibles. Go take a look at a limited edition or misprint Amiibo or the Pipboy that was sent out with Fallout 4 or a limited edition car. It's beyond ridiculous but some people want that exclusivity and if they have the money, let them have it. You don't need to buy it so don't worry about it.

Also wondering why this is in the 40k section when it's a Fantasy item...

Who cares about limited edition books anyway, other than folks having trouble spending all the money that they make? They're worthless. None of the limited GW books appreciate in value. You'd be lucky to get back what you paid for a few years, or months, down the road.

Even the bog-standard Archaon book is hardly necessary - you can grab all the rules for the models from the GW page.

 -DE- wrote:
Who cares about limited edition books anyway, other than folks having trouble spending all the money that they make? They're worthless. None of the limited GW books appreciate in value. You'd be lucky to get back what you paid for a few years, or months, down the road.

Even the bog-standard Archaon book is hardly necessary - you can grab all the rules for the models from the GW page.

Other than the fact they're not selling out is a very good indicator of the health (or lack thereof) of the game?

That is why you should care.

The End Times books sold out in hours. Sometimes even minutes. Yet GW are still sitting on copies of all of the limited AoS books. I know you'll come bs k with the old "but in this game the rules are free so of course they have not sold out!" Well so are the rules for KoW, Infinity and several others and their rulebooks are selling out all the time.

The only other limited editions that have never sold out from GW are Dreadfleet and the Hobbit boxed game. I would be majorly concerned if I were you.

I'm not going to say anything, because I agree. I was just remarking that judging the cost of the game by the cost of limited edition merchandise is silly.

You can buy the starter set and have lots of fun with just its contents, whether GW floats or sinks within a year. Or ten.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I would be majorly concerned if I were you.

Well, there are other ways to look at it.

Speaking as a publisher, you should never, ever run out of your core books. It causes all sorts of problems, from distributors not trusting you to handle your own lines properly, to gamers not being able to get into the game and thus not buying everything else you produce for it. When stock starts to get low, you order a reprint, and I think we can imagine that GW has sufficient stock control to print enough to cover themselves and give decent forewarning of when to reprint. Not knocking the likes of CB and Mantic, I have run out of core books myself in the past

There is also the possibility that a publisher might intentionally print a lower number of books - maybe they cannot afford a larger run at the particular moment, maybe they have completely misjudged demand or maybe, just maybe, they intentionally want to go OOP to create the illusion of demand. I have seen this happen many times in the RPG market where a publisher throws out a huge banner proclaiming their latest masterpiece sold out in less than a month, but a bit of digging shows they only printed a thousand books, so of course it would sell out.

It happens.

Another view is that maybe GW are not altogether worried about AoS books at all. They make their money from the standard editions, of which they know pretty much how many they will sell (and adjust print runs to match), and they are used to create the background upon which Black Library books and perhaps models are based. The whole point of AoS (in this point of view, not saying it is right) is the selling of models and the books only support that effort. If those models then get used for 8th edition, 9th Age or KoW, then it is just possible that no one at GW gives a hoot - the models are still getting sold.

As an aside, I do have this theory that AoS is a sneaky attack on Mantic. Mantic can sell all the rulebooks they like - as far as GW is concerned, Mantic can have a big book selling party, and it won't make any difference because GW sell all the models for the game. This leaves Mantic selling books alone, of which they are likely to sell precisely one to a gamer (until a supplement comes out, and then progressively fewer gamers pick them up, standard sales model for these games), leaving them with just Kickstarters to support their (expensive) plastic production. GW remains top dog because more people buy their models even if they are playing KoW - partially because of Mantic's own desire to grab GW gamers, which may work out in the short term, but may come back to bite them on the bum in the long term. There is no way Mantic (or anyone else in this industry, actually) can produce a Varanguard or Archaon model, or even a Bloodthirster, come to that. If you want the prettiest models for this part of the genre, GW is where it is at.

Added to that, I heard a little whisper recently that GW stores were going to allow any game to be played in their stores, so long as GW models were used. So long as you have your Skaven army (or whatever), you can play KoW in an official GW store. Trying to get this one confirmed at the moment, so may be hogwash, but if it is true, that may be a big two fingers up at Mantic - 'you try to take our customers, we'll make sure they never touch your models.' That could actually work...

Anyway, that is just a theory. Take it for what it is worth.

As for the limited editions, it does not look great when you do a search for 'limited' on GW's web site. However, GW probably have a good idea by now of how many they are going to sell, and if they know they will sell X copies of a limited edition in the first month (when most will be sold) and can ensure they are in profit from those sales, then they may not be too worried. The remaining copies do not take up much space (because there are not too many of them), and so they just sit there and sell a copy every now and again, contributing to the bottom line, but they have already made their money on them.

Not saying any of this is right, just a counterpoint!

Quite true about Kings of War. Miniatures from Mantic aren't so appealing at the moment and they need to expand their range faster than that.

Otherwise, people coming from That Old Game still use their GW miniatures. 'cause they barely have any change to them so that they can play KoW.

As long as GW sell models, that's only what truly matters to them. Books? That's just bonus, to me. Anyway, their main purpose is that people get inspired to buy more miniatures.

I know my local GW store allow any GW games to be played within, including old specialist games like Blood Bowl. But I never heard anything about the other games...Maybe it's a UK only thing, since there are so many "generic wargame rulesets" here?

Something that may be bothering, though, is if GW makes a rule out of the Varanguard box. 100$ for 3 big knights like...now that's not really appealing at all to buy many boxes, even for another game. I just hope they will not follow that crazy road for the other races...but then, I think I'm already fooling myself on that matter, unfortunately.

 Sarouan wrote:

Something that may be bothering, though, is if GW makes a rule out of the Varanguard box. 100$ for 3 big knights like.

That could be a concern, but... I am going to withhold judgement until I am actually holding one, all built, in my hands.

I suspect that the Varanguard are larger than we think - and GW's photos don't do the company any favours in this regard. Everyone went a bit dippy when the Dreadhold was released because of the pricing, but when you actually put together a Skull Keep or, Khorne forbid, the Overlord Bastion, you get how BIG they are. Even the Skull Keep towers over an Imperial Knight and, when you view it like that, the pricing is not altogether nasty.

We all want to pay less for stuff, of course, but if the Varanguard are Dracoth-size, then I might be kinda okay with that price (especially as they are effectively a unit of heroes and not a Chaos Knight replacement - you might ever only want three, six absolute tops).

Put another way, if they released a Chaos Lord on a massive big daemonic mount for $33, I don't think people would have much of an issue. This is a box set with three of those.

They might just be priced correctly...

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

Something that may be bothering, though, is if GW makes a rule out of the Varanguard box. 100$ for 3 big knights like.

That could be a concern, but... I am going to withhold judgement until I am actually holding one, all built, in my hands.

I suspect that the Varanguard are larger than we think - and GW's photos don't do the company any favours in this regard. Everyone went a bit dippy when the Dreadhold was released because of the pricing, but when you actually put together a Skull Keep or, Khorne forbid, the Overlord Bastion, you get how BIG they are. Even the Skull Keep towers over an Imperial Knight and, when you view it like that, the pricing is not altogether nasty.

We all want to pay less for stuff, of course, but if the Varanguard are Dracoth-size, then I might be kinda okay with that price (especially as they are effectively a unit of heroes and not a Chaos Knight replacement - you might ever only want three, six absolute tops).

Put another way, if they released a Chaos Lord on a massive big daemonic mount for $33, I don't think people would have much of an issue. This is a box set with three of those.

They might just be priced correctly...

They are Dracoth sized. Even bigger if you discount the hammer/pennant combo as part of the Celestant's 'size'. They're huge.

I think as well GW has found success with the big-ticket sets, despite the moaning about the price online. I personally have not bought any of the very expensive kits (the most I'll go so far is a Maggoth Lord) but I see photos of people painting up new models from these kits all the time. I see them more than the standard "troop" kits.

Though I have always liked the little guys, I know I've run across many people in gaming who are drawn to the big baddies first and foremost.

I bought a box of varanguard. Chaos is my primary army. The varanguard model is maybe a touch larger than the Bloodcrusher model though if I model the Bloodcrusher model right I can make them equal in size.

$100 for 3 models is unacceptable to most people though.

A week later, I'm the only one that bought a box after the release and thats telling, and makes my heart hurt because I have a lot invested in the warhammer universe and every passing month it looks like more and more I am going to either have to learn to love playing warhammer/AoS with myself, or vomit a little in my mouth and play kings of war if I want to play a fantasy game.

There's hope for Dragon Rampant as well but as they don't have a tournament circuit I'm doubtful my area will pick up on it.

If it makes you feel better, Archaon is the size of an Imperial knight, so fething MASSIVE.

 Brennonjw wrote:
If it makes you feel better, Archaon is the size of an Imperial knight, so fething MASSIVE.

It is unnecessarily massive. Normal monster sized kits are dwarfed by it.

Next step, $450 Dragon kit to be in scale with Archaon. (Comes with optional heads and tails to make any of the High Elf, Dark Elf, Forest, Chaos varieties)

 keezus wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
If it makes you feel better, Archaon is the size of an Imperial knight, so fething MASSIVE.

It is unnecessarily massive. Normal monster sized kits are dwarfed by it.

Next step, $450 Dragon kit to be in scale with Archaon. (Comes with optional heads and tails to make any of the High Elf, Dark Elf, Forest, Chaos varieties)

good lord, GW (and chaos ) fans will whine about anything.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Put another way, if they released a Chaos Lord on a massive big daemonic mount for $33, I don't think people would have much of an issue. This is a box set with three of those.

They might just be priced correctly...

The correct price will always be the one customers will be ready to pay.

And yes, you can use them easily as heroes or lords or whatever cool character you want to lead your armies/warbands. Taking just one box so that you have three characters isn't that much since you will not take a lot more anyway (most likely only one box - you usually don't really need that many heroes on Daemonic Mount/whatever Chaos spawned).

But there, my point is that you will not really have the need to take a lot more, unless you really have a lot of money to spend and really want a small army of those.

The others, well...will just use the old way; take a cheaper box that looks alike and make some conversions. Yeah, Chaos Knights or Bloodcrushers may do the stuff, with more or less work.

Also, for Archaon...you only need one Archaon at all. It's like Nagash or the Celestant Prime; cool centerpiece model, but who will really take multiple boxes of those? And for what purpose? Will we see a 200$ model for Malerion on his Shadow Dragon? Hey, that may be a really cool model, though...

 Sarouan wrote:
Will we see a 200$ model for Malerion on his Shadow Dragon? Hey, that may be a really cool model, though...

I would throw money all day long at such a model. Especially if Malekith is made to look more like a winged demon (like in the book). I'd love to see him remade in Illidan's(warcraft) image.

 Brennonjw wrote:

 keezus wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
If it makes you feel better, Archaon is the size of an Imperial knight, so fething MASSIVE.

It is unnecessarily massive. Normal monster sized kits are dwarfed by it.

Next step, $450 Dragon kit to be in scale with Archaon. (Comes with optional heads and tails to make any of the High Elf, Dark Elf, Forest, Chaos varieties)

good lord, GW (and chaos ) fans will whine about anything.

Haha... I'm only half kidding. There is something to be considered having something huge and top heavy in the middle of the battlefield (where most of the action occurs), surrounded by little dudes that need to be moved and removed. I think GW's design team is obviously following a "wow factor" first, and all other considerations second, kind of direction.

I'm not sure I understand fussing about the price of a limited edition book. Those are always marked up. You don't get much more luxury-priced than a collector's edition of a collector's hobby product. If you want the content, there are many other options, more than there have ever been in the past, in fact:

Hard back, non-limited: $58
iBook version: $48
ebook version: $32
Battle pack (i.e. just the rules): $11.99

Pick what works for you. I have never sprung for a limited edition because I'd rather spend that money on models. Or food for my children.

Being upset about model price is a little more understandable to me, though I don't always agree with the hyperbolic language used in said complaints...

1) It's not an essential item for playing the game
2) It's a 'limited edition' item that translates as 'money grab from collectors' - those willing to pay through the nose just to have something 'rare' to show off with / feel special / superior


I'd save the annoyance for when they demand that sort of price for something required for play - then it is essentially unfair tax. In this case it's a voluntary choice/tax that won't affect your gaming experience

 Grimskul wrote:
I was trying to say that for the most part its par for the course for Gdubs. If Archaon being 150 (200 for us Canadians) didn't throw you off I'm surprised that the limited edition did.

Archaon is $165 USD, right?

As someone who is willing to work with resin, the pricing of things like this causes me to give business to other companies (for a big creature like this, usually Mierce Miniatures, for smaller resin models, any number of small companies).

I actually have considered GW's troop prices to be the best in the business for a long time now. But I do think the pricing of the new AoS releases is a whole different category altogether... I'm wondering what their market is, and if the profit will make up for the reduced volume.

coldgaming wrote:
I think as well GW has found success with the big-ticket sets, despite the moaning about the price online. I personally have not bought any of the very expensive kits (the most I'll go so far is a Maggoth Lord) but I see photos of people painting up new models from these kits all the time. I see them more than the standard "troop" kits.

Though I have always liked the little guys, I know I've run across many people in gaming who are drawn to the big baddies first and foremost.

Once their best selling miniatures of 2015 list is complete it'll be interesting to see how the number of big kits vs standard troops compare.

Personally I don't find the prices for the big kits all that excessive. No-one else makes huge Tyranid monsters, or something like the Archaon.

It's the idea of £20 for a cavalry figure that turns me off, or £22 for a infantry figure (Ad-Mech Arch-Priest Dominus, I saw it in the Oxford shop today.)

However this is to a great extent academic, since I won't pay the prices they ask for rules and codexes anyway, and therefore I don't play any more.

Well you don't need to pay for AoS rules

Archaon is seriously massive. Bigger than a Knight easily. I saw him in person yesterday at the local GW and was blown away by him, and I'll be getting one after Christmas.

You know what else is bigger than a knight? A dreamforge leviathan.

I got 2 for the same price as GW are asking for Archaon in oz.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else is bigger than a knight? A dreamforge leviathan.

I got 2 for the same price as GW are asking for Archaon in oz.

Then you actually have something cheaper in Australia . In EU I can find it roughly at the same price as Archaon.

It fell from $120 to $84 here in the US. You can almost get two leviathans for one archaon. Nevermind scratch that lol Archaon $165, two leviathans $168. $3 isn't really a difference at that point IMO.

But we already know GW charge excessively so that's not news.

Well, the good news is that should you ever change your mind and want one, they'll have plenty available for you. Maybe this AoS disaster will teach the company a little humility, but more likely they'll just be dead in ten years.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I would be majorly concerned if I were you.

Well, there are other ways to look at it.

Speaking as a publisher, you should never, ever run out of your core books. It causes all sorts of problems, from distributors not trusting you to handle your own lines properly, to gamers not being able to get into the game and thus not buying everything else you produce for it. When stock starts to get low, you order a reprint, and I think we can imagine that GW has sufficient stock control to print enough to cover themselves and give decent forewarning of when to reprint. Not knocking the likes of CB and Mantic, I have run out of core books myself in the past

The core books, right, but he's talking about the limited edition books...which GW would absolutely want to sell out of, like they did with Warhammer Fantasy, and it just doesn't seem to be happening. And if GW were the type of company to be content with a 'good enough' sale instead of a sold-out raging success, well...we'd probably still have Fantasy instead of Age of Sigmar.

With regards to the potential rumor about GW allowing people to play whatever in-store with GW models, I'd be interested to see if that pans out - and how. It would definitely solidify their 'not a gaming company' stance, because why would someone selling miniature objects of jewel-like wonder object to how they were used? It might also be an interesting way to encourage people to keep paying the ever-increasing amounts they're asking for the models. Although you've got to wonder what kind of message would be sent to new customers when they show up and everyone's playing Kings of War...

I'm getting tired of people ripping AOS to shreds. It's the best wargame I've played in years and I'm glad they turned fantasy around as it was boring. AOS is more relaxed and better for it!!!

This thread is about the prices of models.

You can talk about how much you like AoS in the AoS for Optimists thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664468.page

Yes, the price issue is inherently GW, not tied to any one game. The screwjob goes all the way back before Lord of the Rings, though their squad boxed set shell game (halving models but keeping the price them same to hide a 100% markup) seems to really have been born with that game.

I don't remember any of GWs systems being cheap, AOS isn't as bad as you don't need a lot of models. If you don't want to pay a stupid amount for Archaon then DONT buy him. Big models always cost big money it's the same in 40k.

I don't remember any of GW's games being cheap, but I do remember them being cheaper as recently as 7th edition Warhammer Fantasy. Perhaps someone who goes farther back in the hobby can remember when and if they might have qualified as 'cheap'. Regardless, this is absolutely the most expensive I can remember them being. The books, the models, the accessories...it was perfectly possible to play WHFB with just a few models, that's not something Age of Sigmar invented. You could play Skirmish. You could play 500 or 750 point games. You could play Warbands, which included some of the best games of Warhammer I played.

And I'm not buying Archaon, but I reserve the right to grumble angrily about the price and how the model focuses on the mount instead of the rider and the price and how much more intimidating the old Archaon looked and also the price.

What? Maybe I've got a unit of Longbeards I want to get a bonus for :p

I remember $35 for 24 models when I entered the hobby in the lord of the rings days. That was damn cheap.

GW/Citadel figures have always been expensive. FOr example, when I started out in historicals in about 1980, a standard historical infantry figure was 20p, while a GW fantasy foot figure was £25p. You did not mind the difference because you were only buying small numbers of figures for RPGs.

However, in the late 2000s, GW began rapidly to increase the price of kits faster than inflation. This was not applied across the board, so for example the Tau Devilfish went up from £18 to £22, while the Hammerhead went up from £20 to £30. (In 2010 and 2012, these massive inflations were also applied to rulebooks.)

Consequently the volume of complaint about prices rose rapidly in the lat 2000, and this is where the idea comes from that people have always complained excessively about prices.

In truth, some of the GW kits now are fairly good value, in GW terms. For instance a box of 24 Skinks is only £20.50. However, as you can buy boxes of historical figures for about 30p a figure, the proce differential between historicals and GW has only increased over the decades.

Other fantasy and SF figure makers have taken a cue from GW's high prices and priced their offerings higher than comparable historicals.

Just to give an oddball answer like I often do, I feel like it got cheaper and then got more expensive.

When I was playing in Second Edition it used to cost £12.50 for a Necromunda gang IIRC and £15 for a 10 man squad in 40k

It now costs me £15.50 for a box of 10 Empire dudes.

It feels like when it went from mostly metal to mostly plastic multipart kits around 3rd edition 40k the game became cheaper.. but has now recently skyrocketed in price over the past couple of years.

It's hard for me to gauge because I was saving up my pocket money when I was younger and everything was so far out of my price range, now I am making mad bank as an adult.

I was making mad bank as an adult there for a while but with Australian prices I kinda just looked at what GW was releasing and said "Yeah, nah. I worked hard for this money, if I'm going to pay that much I want the quality to match."

On the plus side I got well aqquainted with 52 and 75mm display models, especially the limited edition kind.

Maybe it doesn't seem so bad in the UK because the cost of living is so high. Using that Empire State troopers box as an example again, 1 box is cheaper than a day's train fare for my commute to work (which is over £16).

And as an adult with a well paying job, I have the constant problem of buying too many models and not being able to collect/paint them all. Next year I am actually limiting myself to 6 miniature purchases for the entire year - just to help me get through my painting backlog.

I do think GW have shot themselves in the foot with the business model of only increasing prices for new models though (although I am not complaining!!) when you're in the GW and see its £60 for 3 Varanguard Knights or £65 for the Empire battalion which is 20 statesmen, 10 crossbowmen, 8 Knights and 1 canon & 3 crew (42 models vs 3) it really seems like a no brainier which you'd want to buy.

When AOS first came out, I thought it could actually change the gaming scene. Free rules, lower unit numbers. But then I saw the prices on the books and units outside of the starter box and I laughed. They're contradicting the very things that could have made AOS a great starter game.

I can afford more of this stuff than at any time in my life, but I find myself shying away from paying what they are asking because there is just much better value to be found for me.

A lot of that is to do with not liking the artistic direction for the last few years and not being particularly wedded to GW's game systems any more.

I was ready to give AoS a fair go, and there are ideas in there that I kinda like. But on the whole, it's just more of the same problems I found offputting from before.

I honestly don't think GW is that expensive compared to other companies. PP is insanely pricey if you actually want to play whereas AoS won't set you back that much. Oh and the fact that GW's models are miles and miles above any other company in technical value is just a bonus. I mean, look at WarmaHordes - The minis are still in metal and resin and the casting quality is gak, the sculpts are gak and the posing is gak (because they don't use 3d technology on a computer the same way GW does. Only company that comes close to GW is Wyrd, but their miniatures are single pose because it would be too expensive to make otherwise.

 Da Boss wrote:
I can afford more of this stuff than at any time in my life, but I find myself shying away from paying what they are asking because there is just much better value to be found for me.

A lot of that is to do with not liking the artistic direction for the last few years and not being particularly wedded to GW's game systems any more.

I was ready to give AoS a fair go, and there are ideas in there that I kinda like. But on the whole, it's just more of the same problems I found offputting from before.

This. I can afford to buy the entire GW catalog but I don't feel there's any value for me, personally, so they don't benefit from my monthly nerd budget. Conversely, I have more board games now than I ever have before and am getting into bolt action.

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
I honestly don't think GW is that expensive compared to other companies.

They are and they aren't. The models, individually, aren't egregiously overpriced (the hero figures for $30-$40 are, everything Everchosen), but Games Workshop has built its model around a minimum purchase amount that is much higher.

By that I mean, say you want to add to your hobby every month, so you have a modest budget for it. With Warmachine (or Infinity, which I recently started), you can comfortably add to your hobby with under $50 a month. Individual models in Warmachine (like Warcasters) tend to range from about $10 to $20, Jacks tend to be about $30-$40, and units can range from $30-$60 in general. Infinity's individual models are about $10-$15, with sets of models being $40-$50. In short, with a $50 month budget, you can buy multiple items per month, usually with some left over for next month.

Age of Sigmar, however, has a base of about $50. Since AoS started, there's been no boxes of units for under $50 - many being $60 or so. Some being $100. The repacks are generally a good deal, but they didn't reduce the price of the boxes, just added more models. So you can't get 8 Saurus Guards for under $30, you need to buy 15 Saurus Guards for $55 (even if you only want 8). Then end result is that at $50 a month, you will only be able to buy a box every other month. And this extends to the books as well. In short, in order to keep adding to your hobby every month, with Age of Sigmar, you'd need at least $75 (enough to get free shipping from GW.com), but would probably be better off with $100.

Part of this is that GW controls the online market place so it is impossible to find AoS stuff for discounts. Some shops, like Frontline Gaming, sell GW stuff at 20% off - but then has $10 shipping, which erases the discount at $50. Meanwhile, Miniature Market and Amazon both carry Warmachine and Infinity figures for significant discounts. I believe this also applies to Malifaux. So when Warmachine says a model is $60, you can get it for $45. When Games Workshop says a model is $50, you are paying $50.

(Just today, Fantasy Flight Games/Asmodee announced that they would do something similar with their products, so FFG just went full Games Workshop. You never go full Games Workshop).

So no, Games Workshop is not ultimately more expensive than the other games (most of the time), but because of the grouping of products into more expensive bundles, you have to make large lump purchases at one time. And with fewer discounts or options for purchases, you ultimately end up paying MSRP where you wouldn't with other, less uptight companies.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Sqogar?

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
I honestly don't think GW is that expensive compared to other companies. PP is insanely pricey if you actually want to play whereas AoS won't set you back that much. Oh and the fact that GW's models are miles and miles above any other company in technical value is just a bonus. I mean, look at WarmaHordes - The minis are still in metal and resin and the casting quality is gak, the sculpts are gak and the posing is gak (because they don't use 3d technology on a computer the same way GW does. Only company that comes close to GW is Wyrd, but their miniatures are single pose because it would be too expensive to make otherwise.

You're speaking as if plastic and CAD sculpting are objectively good things. They aren't.

Newsflash though, all the high end display companies doing truly amazing sculpts that blow GW out of the water because they are designed to be painted and sit on a shelf, not played with, they all use metal or resin. Both materials hold better detail than plasric and allow for undercuts. In fact I am loving that PP are moving to resin bodies with metal parts for their characters and real plastic for jacks.

I'm also not sure what you mean by other companies not using 3d sculpting technology the way GW does. As far aa I am aware GWs method is no different from PP or CBs.

 Bottle wrote:
Who are you and what have you done with the real Sqogar?

Due to an absurd sequence of events, December ended up costing me a stupid amount of money just to have things that I already had, only less broken. So I had to reduce my monthly budget for miniature games by half and discovered that at $50 a month, I couldn't do jack gak. I still like Age of Sigmar as a game. I just can't afford to play it for the next six months.

Ironically, I was thinking that going back to Imperial Assault would be a good value, and then FFG pulls a GW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
In fact I am loving that PP are moving to resin bodies with metal parts for their characters and real plastic for jacks.

PP's resin models are AWFUL. Haven't see their plastic jacks yet, but it can only be an improvement.

Their PVC is pretty crap, their new resins blow GWs new plastics out of the water.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Their PVC is pretty crap, their new resins blow GWs new plastics out of the water.

Which models have the new resins? The stuff I ended up with as part of the all-in-one boxes was practically unusable, with holes and mould lines through details (like faces!), and aren't strong enough to support metal components (I hear some of the cavalry models' legs eventually crumble under the weight). The terrible model quality is half the reason I quit Warmachine.

Durst is the first to come to mind, all that pretty little gold circular patterns are sculpted onto him. His body is a big resin chunk then the parts coming off him are metal. The new Hayleys are similar, as are the guys riding the desert thing and the cephelix caster. It seems to be the new way of doing things, and its a huge step forwards imo.

Sqorgar wrote:I still like Age of Sigmar as a game. I just can't afford to play it for the next six months.

Commiserations on your financial situation, but I have to ask, would you mind if someone took that quote out of context and sigged it...?

Some on-topic comment... um... harrumph harrumph prices harrumph.

Seriously tho. After hearing about how free rules, list freedom, and smaller model counts were going to bring about the Age of Sigquarius or something, it didn't take long before rules hidden behind the same ol' expensive hardcovers, and big model bundles costing the guts of a grand, based on must-have 'roided-rules warscrolls in said books, started showing up. That's what proves that it's - literally - business as usual at GW.

No good.

jonolikespie wrote:Durst is the first to come to mind, all that pretty little gold circular patterns are sculpted onto him. His body is a big resin chunk then the parts coming off him are metal. The new Hayleys are similar, as are the guys riding the desert thing and the cephelix caster. It seems to be the new way of doing things, and its a huge step forwards imo.

So this is a new thing? If PP has truly changed their ways with their gakky models, I'll give them another chance. I have issues with Warmachine as a game, but that's not nearly as insurmountable as poor quality models.

Vermis wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:I still like Age of Sigmar as a game. I just can't afford to play it for the next six months.

Commiserations on your financial situation, but I have to ask, would you mind if someone took that quote out of context and sigged it...?

I don't have any problems with miniatures being an expensive hobby, so quoting that makes it sound like I'm complaining about the value rather than about my current poverty. I mean the amount of time you get out of a single model assembling/painting it, then playing it - and they last for years (or even lifetimes) - they beat the crap out of a $60 video games with $300 in DLC that you play for 6 hours then lose access to it a year later because EA turned off the servers. It's not a bad value proposition, all things considered. I've got some Saturn games in the closet that would be worth several hundred dollars, if they weren't riddled with bit rot making them unplayable.

It's just that at $50 a month, you'll go long periods of time unable to buy more AoS stuff. The weird thing is that AoS is a pretty good skirmish game. About 50 models is all you need to have a great time. But GW sells them in packs of 20, so you can never seem to get the right amount of models for the right amount of money. If they sold boxes of 10 models for $25, the game would be amazing at $50 a month. Hell, with hero models, you could have as few at 6 models on the table and have a great time. But the hero models are $40, not $10. Age of Sigmar SHOULD be perfect for $50 a month. It's not really the price of the model (the heroes are grossly overpriced though), but the size of the bundle you have to buy to get them. I don't think I ever want more than the minimum size for most units, so why are they all sold in double and triple the number of models?

I think GW expects people to play much, much larger games of Age of Sigmar than I think anybody really wants to play.

Actually, I guess the thing to do would be to halfsies with someone else. Buy a box of 20, keep 10, give 10. We'd end up with identical armies, which would be a bit weird, but I think that could actually work out...

Seriously tho. After hearing about how free rules, list freedom, and smaller model counts were going to bring about the Age of Sigquarius or something, it didn't take long before rules hidden behind the same ol' expensive hardcovers, and big model bundles costing the guts of a grand, based on must-have 'roided-rules warscrolls in said books, started showing up. That's what proves that it's - literally - business as usual at GW.

The rules ARE free. The hardcovers are completely optional, frankly not worth the money, and I think most of the scenarios can be bought for a dollar or two from the app. The battalion warscrolls can be overpowered, but you don't have to play with them (or could factor their power into balancing). The big models are exorbitant, but GW isn't unique there. I mean, WMH has a $70 warcaster about the size of some of the $80-$90 GW models, and super expensive colossals. Archaon for $165 is a WAY better model than Convergence's $145 colossal.

The main problem with Age of Sigmar is that it bundles too many models together to force you to buy more models than you want or need, just to make sure that every box set is at least $50 - which sucks when you only have $50 budgeted. You can have smaller games... you just can't BUY smaller games. I guess a secondary problem is that GW's online scam forces you to pay MSRP prices, while Miniature Market has that ugly Convergence $145 colossal for $108.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think GW expects people to play much, much larger games of Age of Sigmar than I think anybody really wants to play.

I'm actually really curious about this, what is the average sized game people play? The rules suggest that 100 models a side but to me that seems dumb, it's not much smaller than a WHFB game so it really doesn't seem cheaper or anything there if people take that suggestion.

Having said that I find more people wanting angame to be 1-2 hours and an evening of gaming is just multiple games so I don't really expect people to play thar size anyway.

I don't usually go over 50 models, after that I find it too cumbersome. Especially if you are playing full scenery rules.

I think Age of Sigmar is priced very nicely if you're looking at playing with the old WHFB box sets. There's loads more gaming value to be found in one of those 10-men sets now than there was in 8th Edition.

- BUT - yeah the new AoS factions are priced so far out of that range. And the Stormcast aren't nice models either in my opinion.

If GW is aiming AoS at the new gamer, they missed the mark. Only the starter set caters, and everything else is far too expensive.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Their PVC is pretty crap, their new resins blow GWs new plastics out of the water.

Which models have the new resins? The stuff I ended up with as part of the all-in-one boxes was practically unusable, with holes and mould lines through details (like faces!), and aren't strong enough to support metal components (I hear some of the cavalry models' legs eventually crumble under the weight). The terrible model quality is half the reason I quit Warmachine.

The models in the all in one boxes are plastic (PVC) not resin. Their resin models are superb, and the HIPS models they've started producing are apparantly pretty good too, it's the PVC ones that are pretty bad.

The rules suggest that 100 models a side but to me that seems dumb, it's not much smaller than a WHFB game so it really doesn't seem cheaper or anything there if people take that suggestion.

Having said that I find more people wanting angame to be 1-2 hours and an evening of gaming is just multiple games so I don't really expect people to play thar size anyway.

I've not seen them suggest 100 models a side, where are you getting that? They say 100 models a side will probably take an evening to play (and is probably not far off so far as I've seen), but that isn't a recommendation to play with 100 a side just a guide as to length of play. Based on that it is not too hard to work out what to size at for a 1-2 hour game. Their events may be a better guide to what they see as 'suggested' sizes. Just looking at the warhammer world events. The one yesterday was a 30 models format and they were allowing 1.5 hours per game. The next one says 60-70 models should be about right for the 3 hour format.

At the moment my current opponent fields probably around 100 models, but he just has mass 1 wound models and they very quickly drop in number. I haven't currently fielded more than 20 models, but they're monstrous infantry and monsters.

Re the 1-2 hours per game being wanted? I expect that there a is a very wide variance there. Those I play with want a game to take an evening if we get together for an evening. On the other hand I suspect a game that can be played quicker will probably attract a newer generation who maybe do want quicker games. Interestingly that came up in discussion yesterday when we were playing another game. Our one resident competitive tourney player was saying how he gets a bit annoyed by what appears to be an increasing trend with X-wing players at tournaments complaining about tourney games being too long (i.e. 2.5 hours), presumably as the star wars brand is bringing in those who have never really been into gaming; especially tourney gaming.

AoS seems good for that as you can have good games that are small enough for a 2 hour game or larger evening games. I never found WFB was never very satisfactory for shorter/smaller games. I can't really see KoW being that good for a quick (sub 2 hour game) either, though I'm struggling to remember how long it was taking us to play when we last played it.

But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

Has there been any AoS battlereports in WhiteDwarfWeekly?
If so, how big has those forces been?

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

That's not the reality at all. You need a lot less models than you did for a standard game of WHFB (1250-2000pts).

And deployment poker is only used for playing AoS from the 4 page rules only. If you are playing one of the scenarios you outline your forces before deployment so it's between you and your opponent to choose appropriate sides.

A quick AoS army needs only be 1 10-man regiment of infantry, 5 cavalry, 1 hero and 1 wizard/priest to have a fun game.

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Chillax man.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models, and many WMH players say the game is unbalanced at lower point values. WMH is very much built on combos and counters (too much, in my opinion). While I'd argue that AoS counts aren't nearly as strong, yeah, you'd need a larger army to ensure that you had every potential counter for your opponent's army.

Second, WMH is not a "fat steaming turd". I have my problems with both the game and the models (I guess, specifically, the PVC ones), but it's not a bad game. It's just designed to be played in a way that I don't enjoy - but others do. One day, they'll create a format for the game that I find more agreeable (and that opponents want to play) than Steamroller. And I'm hoping the poor model quality is a stop gap as PP works towards better stuff.

As for the paints, I much prefer the Citadel paints. PP paints don't have enough pigment, so it takes me 7-9 coats to get a decent flat color out of them. Took me two days just to base paint a Spriggan red. Ugh. Give me two thin coats any day.

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models, and many WMH players say the game is unbalanced at lower point values. WMH is very much built on combos and counters (too much, in my opinion). While I'd argue that AoS counts aren't nearly as strong, yeah, you'd need a larger army to ensure that you had every potential counter for your opponent's army.

Second, WMH is not a "fat steaming turd". I have my problems with both the game and the models (I guess, specifically, the PVC ones), but it's not a bad game. It's just designed to be played in a way that I don't enjoy - but others do. One day, they'll create a format for the game that I find more agreeable (and that opponents want to play) than Steamroller. And I'm hoping the poor model quality is a stop gap as PP works towards better stuff.

As for the paints, I much prefer the Citadel paints. PP paints don't have enough pigment, so it takes me 7-9 coats to get a decent flat color out of them. Took me two days just to base paint a Spriggan red. Ugh. Give me two thin coats any day.

I understand what you're saying but I still hate warmachine and that isn't going to change. I'm using mostly metallic p3 paints though so they might be slightly different to the normal colours you're using as I'm painting Stormcast Eternals...

The problem is that it is 200$.

Thats alot of money and that is just screwing people over. I don't care who you ARE. Thats kind of ridiculously dumb and stupid.

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

The Retribution All-In-One has 28 models in it, and it only fields 35 pts. A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy. I'd say AoS and WMH have very similar scales.

To get a bit back on subject, the new "collection starter" boxes that GW is releasing for $85 are a heck of a deal, and while they are a bit more than my $50 budget, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to resist the Seraphon starter. Hopefully, these boxes will be around for a while. I have my eye on one or two others as well.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Since when do model looks have anything to do with how good a game is. There are ton of models that looks stupid or ugly, even both at the same time, and people still buying them in multiples, because they are efficient. I mean your not going to tell me that all those corrions and borrowing stuff undead factions get, gets bought up so fast, just because the models look awesome.

A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy

I don't think there are that many armies in w40k that run 40+models. My cygnar is infantry heavy, and I don't have the colossal everyone runs in their lists,a nd my lists are not that big. Menoth or Retribution can do it, but that is like saying that skaven slave armies or goblin armies should be used as a norm for army size in WFB.

I would say most of the 40k armies where I play (2000 pts) are about 50-60 models on average. There are some that play very low model count with knights, and there are some that play horde guard or orks with 120-150 models.

My necron army is 65 models give or take.

40k must have changed a bit since I last played it a few years ago. I would use over 40 gaunts alone, and had about 100 if really needed (I still have about 60 in unopened boxes that have been sat in the garage for years). My old marine army had something like 50-60 models and they were both a lot less than 2000pts. I seem to remember 1250 pts being about standard when I first got into it then 1500pts becoming more normal.

Okay, with regards to the Codex I stand by my previous comments..... that said



What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.


I can buy a box of x15 well sculpted Norman knights on horseback for SAGA for £20.


The feth am I seeing - this has to be a parody website I've stumbled onto

 Wulfmar wrote:

What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.

A) GW prices according to their value to an army, not by the number of pounds of plastic they use.

B) They are VERY big horsies.

C) Only rich people get to play the Everchosen.

D) You should see the price tag on Archaon...

E) GW gonna GW.

If you can download the Varanguard rules free, why won't people use a proxy model like the Chaos Knights?

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

The Retribution All-In-One has 28 models in it, and it only fields 35 pts. A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy. I'd say AoS and WMH have very similar scales.
.

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

Like I said, it entirely depends on the army. It's more than 'run a colossal or jack heavy'.

For every one of those doodspam lists, you have something else with a far lower model count. Doodspam is not necessarily smart all the time - there is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. My vlad3 charge of the horselords list is about 20models for example. Fenris, the drakhun and Markov are 30% of the list! and they're 3 models. Khador and ret are at the upper end in terms of body count lists as well, let's not forget. Most of the hordes lists out there (and they're half the game) run with lots more beasts than they run infantry spam, and it's not uncommon to see a legion or circle list with dozen models in in. My 50pt kromac lists is typical running a gorax, warpwolf trinity (30points right there...) and thst doesn't leave room for 'three or four units of 10 models'. YouLl typically see double shrimp, or wolf riders and bloodtrackers backing up the beasts. In terms of body count, It's a Hell of a lot less than 50, and it's pretty par for the course for circle builds in general.

So yeah, it's not as simple as you would like to believe. 50 might the upper limit, and yes, there are builds that focus on this. I've run them. I like some of them. Butcher2s mad dogs of war theme list (I run 8 squads of doom reavers in mine) is insane amounts of fun. But it's not necessarily common, smart nor does it somehow define the size of the game when so many other lists out there have a far smaller footprint. So like I said, 30 is a far more common size.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Okay, with regards to the Codex I stand by my previous comments..... that said



What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.


I can buy a box of x15 well sculpted Norman knights on horseback for SAGA for £20.


The feth am I seeing - this has to be a parody website I've stumbled onto

Well, I will venture and say each Varanguard could easily have 10x more mass in plastic than a single SAGA knight, if not more. That's without taking into account the crazy fifference in detail, and the spare parts in the GW kit.

Aye there may be more plastic used and more detail - but in my mind at least I just can't justify the price. I could buy a 1/35 model warship with x5 the plastic of the three knights with an electric motor (control device extra) for the same price. It's my personal view though as there are other things that I consider buying model-wise rather than GW being my main hobby (it's been pushed further down the list as time marches on. I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

Deadnight wrote:

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

All the Warmachine All-In-One boxes are 35 pt tournament ready lists between 22-28 models - usually two group units, two jacks, and a handful of solo/support units. The new Cephalyx box is 37 models (has three group units of 10). The point is WMH and AoS operate at a similar scale - somewhere in the midrange of model counts. More than a handful, but less than a bucket.

Most of the hordes lists out there (and they're half the game) run with lots more beasts than they run infantry spam, and it's not uncommon to see a legion or circle list with dozen models in in.

It's actually kind of ironic that in a game called "Warmachine", the war machines are generally considered quite poor, while in a game called "Hordes", you end up playing with fewer models altogether.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

All the Warmachine All-In-One boxes are 35 pt tournament ready lists between 22-28 models - usually two group units, two jacks, and a handful of solo/support units. The new Cephalyx box is 37 models (has three group units of 10). The point is WMH and AoS operate at a similar scale - somewhere in the midrange of model counts. More than a handful, but less than a bucket.

And like what was pointed out, these all in one boxes don't define the size. And I'm not going to repeat myself again.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's actually kind of ironic that in a game called "Warmachine", the war machines are generally considered quite poor, while in a game called "Hordes", you end up playing with fewer models altogether.

Depends on the definition. Most dictionaries will define one of the meanings of warmachine as something along the lines of 'the military forces of a nation'. Similarly. Hordes works when you think of them as 'the hordes that inhabit the wilderness', rather than what appears on the table top.

And amusingly, 'warmachine' is a rather apt term (singular noun), as plenty lists only run a single jack in their list.

Still think that instead of combining Warmachine and Hordes to form the Warmahordes portmanteau, they should have gone down the Hordes and Warmachine route to make Hormachine

And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

 Wulfmar wrote:
I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

*Cough*KingsofWar*cough*

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

I nearly made it through a whole year without someone spouting the Fantasy/SciFi crossover GW have had planned for ever because money...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

*Cough*KingsofWar*cough*

Uh, how do you get 'confidence' in how a race will play before you use them?

RoperPG wrote:

Uh, how do you get 'confidence' in how a race will play before you use them?

I've not seen bat reps (though there may be some) that explain how Tomb Kings function in AoS. They haven't been made into an AoS faction like some of the other forces either from what I can see. I don't know how they translate into an AoS force and how they would work under the new system.

To get confidence, I would need to see videos of them in the new system, read the rules and understand how they have changed from the previous incarnation for which they were designed for.

As it is, the Tomb King forum is effectively dead and I see next to no discussion or army lists on them - it's like they've been left alone. When I say confidence, I mean confidence in what I need to buy to make a functional army, as well as confidence that what I but won't end up being a waste of money.

If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.

Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.

Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.

Would appreciate it. Thanks!

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

Depends on what "success" means. If it's successful by being "20% better than WHFB in 2014", there's no way GW will mess with their cash cow. On the other hand, if in 12 months, AoS ties 40k in sales and in 24 months, AoS climbs to a half billion in annual sales, out the door 40k goes, points and all, hello free 4 page rules. Hell, they might even go for 3.

And no, I don't think that the latter will happen I do think AoS will give GW better sales than WHFB in the last few years, but not enough that they'll be happy with it; and I think that eventually, they will capitulate and throw points back into the game, or some balancing system for pickup games. But what do I know!

I think "success" is defined by GW management as whatever the hell they say it is, with no actual metric behind it. If Kirby says it is a success it is a success and 40k is boned.

I have topped almost 100 AoS games, the numbers of models being cited is no where near the amount we use, maybe thats just us, but minimum of 50 models usually well closer to 100 on the table. the idea of 30 to 40 just isnt really realistic.

I wonder what number the game was designed for, are there batttle reports in WD that show AoS games?


The rules do suggest 100 models a side is an evenings worth of gaming, so I take that to mean that is their expected size, but that seems, from the outside at least, grossly bloated for a skirmish game.

it is definately a work in progress. it has been a royal pain in the _____ to get a balanced game. the scenarios are pretty sucky. we generally try to stick with battallion boxes now. overall what we have found turning off newer players is the almost complete lack of any rational structure. that and the size of some of our fights has made the sticker shock for buy in to AoS no better than warhammer. the only difference is you can buy "what you want" not necessarily "what you need" for a legit army.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think "success" is defined by GW management as whatever the hell they say it is, with no actual metric behind it. If Kirby says it is a success it is a success and 40k is boned.

As long as the company makes a profit it is by definition successful.

The arguments around GW's performance centre on two key points:

1) Even a profitable company should worry about long-term decline in sales.
2) GW could be selling more and therefore making even more profit with a different strategy (a larger portfolio of games, better marketing, etc.)

 jonolikespie wrote:
The rules do suggest 100 models a side is an evenings worth of gaming, so I take that to mean that is their expected size, but that seems, from the outside at least, grossly bloated for a skirmish game.

i don't take it is as expected size, i just take it as what it says. If you have a full evening to play then you can probably fit in 100 figs. If you have only a couple of hours then roughly halve it. The events at warhammer world have so far been 30-60 models that I've seen.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.

Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.

Please do. Thanks.

GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

For the average player, it all has to do with what they have in expendable income, and what the value of what they are buying on a personal level. I assume that like most players, I use other products in a similar range to decide if this is worth my money. When buying video games for example, I have a different scale when buying for my console vs. buying for my phone. (I don't like spending over 50 bucks on a console game, for the phone its 10 bucks.) If I spend 20 dollars on a video game for my phone, I expect it to be one of the best I've ever played. the same amount of money spent on a console game is either a much older AAA purchase, or trying out an indy game. I hold them to different standards, even though they cost the same.

Wargaming is not my only hobby, nor is it the cheapest! I make rat-bikes as a hobby, and have a good idea of what bike parts cost. 100 bucks is a tiny purchase, 500 is average, anything over 1,000 is a seriously considered part. For wargaming, I look at what an average sized army is with a few options, figure out its cost, and decide if I want to buy it. What I don't do is think that the cost of some new chrome forward controls is equal to a knight army for 40K. However, If I played other Wargames I'm sure the cost per army would factor in, and I would certainly compare the cost of a GW army to the cost of a Warmachine/hordes army, for example.

AoS has the advantage of not needing all of it at once, but for the last ten years that is how I have always bough and painted miniatures. (just my personal preference for making armies.) It used to be the cost of a new army at standard play for GW games was 300-400 bucks for 40K, and roughly double that for fantasy. With the change from AoS to fantasy it feels much more in line with 40K now, as far as number of models needed to play. (I've been kicking around a dark forest army idea, it prices out at around 375.00)

I feel like the cost of GW models in general are a little higher now, but one thing AoS did was bring the cost to play it far more in line with 40K.

If people buy 200.00 models, they will continue to cost 200.00.

There is one huge hole in your argument. People aren't paying $200 for a model.

It's all well and good to say they are charging whatever the players are willing to pay, but with falling sales year on year for a LONG time now people aren't willing to pay GWs prices.

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is one huge hole in your argument. People aren't paying $200 for a model.

It's all well and good to say they are charging whatever the players are willing to pay, but with falling sales year on year for a LONG time now people aren't willing to pay GWs prices.

Oh, I agree with you. I've had my eye on several of the new giant models, for both 40k and fantasy. I have the income to purchase them, but I didn't buy the Vermin Lord for my Skaven when it came out, or a Gorkanaut for my Ork army. (even though I have all the other models to field the Killa Kan/Stompa formation.) I didn't buy them simply because they are too expensive for what you get.

I was just trying to look at the big picture, comparing why I buy things and comparative value. For me, GW has priced themselves out of a lot of models. Why would I buy the Archaeon model when I can get an entire "starter" army for either 40k or fantasy? I think in general they lost sight of having one or two centerpiece models to having entire armies of them.

This is all coming from a guy who only plays at a GW store and only makes his purchases through that store to support the local game scene. There are less and less models that I feel are worth the cost, it will be an interesting day when ALL the models reach that point. (I hope it doesn't!)

I do feel like they are taking steps to lower costs, many of the newer starter boxes are priced well. (only in comparison to other GW models, of course.) As usual though its two steps forward, one step back. the new Fyreslayers are 10 models for 60 bucks, 5 models for 40 bucks, and a character for 30 bucks. Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.

 pox wrote:
Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.

See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.

I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?

Since October I've bought Archaon, Bloodthirster, Celestant Prime, Verminlord, Carnosaur, Engine of the Gods, Zombie Dragon, Frostheart Phoenix, Stormfiends and several others.
Guess I'm bucking the trend!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 pox wrote:
Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.

See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.

I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?

I think they are getting it, that's why some of the new bundle deals are very good value.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 pox wrote:
Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.

See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.

I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?

I think they are getting it, that's why some of the new bundle deals are very good value.

That is true, but I am still a bit skeptic - the bundles are a (faint, imo) sign of hope, but it's not gonna be much of a change if the rest of the range keeps to the same price tags.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.

I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?

With various sets (Dryads, new starter sets, etc) there are now plenty of cheap (well, cheaper) options. You are covered.

For those wanting to spend a bit more for something a bit special, they are covered.

GW are hitting both the high end and low(er) end on the spending spectrum. It is the smart thing to do (add in whole psychology of higher price items driving sales of lower price items).

So long as there are the mantics in the world cranking out cruddy looking but very cheap models for mass fantasy, GW will always have a problem in the pricing realm.

Per many many polls, the average total expenditure that players are willing to dole out for an army sits at roughly $200.

Of course even in 1998 you couldn't get a whole army for $200, so thats not completely fair (my first undead army in 1997 was $450) but that seems to be the magical figure that comes out in many polls.

I think the big kits are clearly a hit for GW. Look at the top 28 bestsellers list. Even the pricier, elite troop units seem to do better than the old standard 16 or 20 pack of basic troops. Other than the battalion bundle deals, is there a single box on the top 28 list that has more than 10 models in it?

Archaon has been all over the AoS community pages. I'm not surprised that going for pricier, elite models finds more success than hordes of cheaper models. The same dynamic is true in many industries.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.

I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?

With various sets (Dryads, new starter sets, etc) there are now plenty of cheap (well, cheaper) options. You are covered.

For those wanting to spend a bit more for something a bit special, they are covered.

GW are hitting both the high end and low(er) end on the spending spectrum. It is the smart thing to do (add in whole psychology of higher price items driving sales of lower price items).

Out of curiosity, where exactly in that spectrum does a single infantry model priced at 30$ - like the Auric Runemaster - fit? Is it in the obscenely expensive slot or in the just absurdly expensive one?

The same can be said about the Vulkite Berserkers box going at 60$ - where does it fit? Or the Varanguard - unless you want to slot them into the "Special Snowflake" slot that seems to provide instant justification for any outrageous price GW decides to apply to a model.

I also have a feeling that if the dryads got new models their price wouldn't be the one you're mentioning... But hey, maybe that's just me.

Varanguard through an independent stockist can be picked up for £48 for 3, so £16 per model. At that price they're much bigger than standard £20 and under characters.

Hero606v2 wrote:
Varanguard through an independent stockist can be picked up for £48 for 3, so £16 per model. At that price they're much bigger than standard £20 and under characters.

Yep... confirmed Special Snowflake Slot then.

At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.

Hero606v2 wrote:
At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.

Through an Independent Stockist that applies a 20% discount and without SnH charges. And even then, to a lot of people it will still be too expensive.

for me I decide on a model to model basis. I get that the Varenguard are giant models, so its more of a "three juggernauts for 100 bucks" rather then "three cavalry for 100 bucks."

If I played a chaos army I'm sure I'd take a closer look, but it's 33 bucks a model so that prices out the hook to start a new army, if that makes any sense.

To put it another way, I have a heavy infantry Imp Guard army. It's a very thematic army, based off of using a lot of terrain and built to hold ground. I decided to branch out and make three inquisitor retinues for story variation.

Once I had the Inquisitors, I started looking at marines. I bought the new codex, and started pricing out a good "starter" army that would ally with inquisitors and my Guard.

Until Battle of Calth, there really wasn't any box that seemed worth it, it looked like I'd be dropping a lot of coin just to get a bare-bones marine army. Once Calth dropped it was no question. 30 marines, 5 termies, two captains, and a dreadnought for 150 bucks. It was an excellent starting force, and as I wanted to build Red Hunters the older armor fit the bill for a SM Chapter dedicated to helping the inquisition.

Now that I have a good starter force, ill expand it. The new Demi company is in the ballpark.

Without the new priced boxes I wouldn't have even started the SM allies.

If you are into your models, anything that looks cool and has a challenge will get sales: everyone is looking for their next mountain to climb.
It just gets harder to sell to the gaming crowd who are progressively tempted to substitute with a can of Dr. Pepper.

GW has managed to get me to buy 2 Imperial Knights, the original and the new kit.
I still cannot quite bring myself to get a third (which is a logical limit).

Funny how "coldgaming" was asking if any single box in the top 28 list has more than 10 models in it... ummm... they have been shrinking model counts in boxes for a long time (like Dire Avengers from 10 to 5 models, Khorne Berserkers from 20 to 12) so there would not be much to choose from or they are old.

 Talizvar wrote:
If you are into your models, anything that looks cool and has a challenge will get sales: everyone is looking for their next mountain to climb.
It just gets harder to sell to the gaming crowd who are progressively tempted to substitute with a can of Dr. Pepper.

I think this is the crux of it. Miniature games are one part hobby, one part game. Some folks are just in it for the game and consider the hobby aspect to be an inconvenience at best. I think AoS sells more to the hobby crowd, with the bare minimum of game needed to provide the tabletop experience without it dominating the entire community. My guess is that a larger portion of AoS figures sold actually get painted than 40k or Warmachine, because what's the point otherwise? So GW can charge a bit more for the models because they aren't just glorified game pieces.

For some people yes miniature games are part hobby part game.

There is a large ocean of people that are primarily game though, where the miniatures are nothing more than tokens to play the game, and those people don't want to pay much at all for those tokens if they don't have to.

auticus wrote:So long as there are the mantics in the world cranking out cruddy looking but very cheap models for mass fantasy, GW will always have a problem in the pricing realm.

I'd say that Mantic's fantasy minis match GW's, in that they can be a bit overpriced for what they are, too. GW's quality is generally higher than Mantic's, but I don't think it's £3.50-£4 per human-sized plastic infantry figure, higher.

Intent regarding the size of the game - skirmish or mass battle, for example - can be a factor too. But even for a smaller game than what 8th ed became, I'd consider WFB's prices still very high. AoS's prices, well...

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Hero606v2 wrote:
At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.

Through an Independent Stockist that applies a 20% discount and without SnH charges. And even then, to a lot of people it will still be too expensive.

This. Sheer size, and quantity of digitally sculpted texture, aren't the be-all end-all of miniature pricing. Especially not when we're talking mass-produced plastic, too.

£16 is fairly outrageous when you can get detailed - and to be frank, more subtly-sculpted* - plastic historical cavalry for about £1.60. A tenth of the price! Being generous, say a varanguard is about three times the size. That's about £5 of plastic in non-GW pricing. £6-7 to be even more generous and tack on a bit of 'fantasy tax'. Still less than half of the price they go for, at a discount.

* From my own experience, sticking big, chunky, eye-catching spikes, teeth, armour trim, texture and such all over a model isn't the pinnacle, or the most difficult aspect, of the mini sculptor's art. Particularly not with a handy copy of Zbrush or whatever lying around. I'd debate that it makes a big injection-moulded knight worth £20.
It's relatively easy to sculpt a big, fangy, gnashy fictional monster that looks vaguely like a horse. Getting a sculpt to really look like an actual horse - notoriously difficult in art - is the more impressive, arguably work-intensive feat. There are a fair few mini sculptors who set out to do that, but couldn't quite manage it.

auticus wrote:For some people yes miniature games are part hobby part game.

There is a large ocean of people that are primarily game though, where the miniatures are nothing more than tokens to play the game, and those people don't want to pay much at all for those tokens if they don't have to.

Which is my point. Some people look at the miniatures as glorified tokens, and some people look at the miniatures as hobby projects. It is easier to justify higher prices for a hobby than a game.

I'm not going to tell people how to enjoy their own games, but miniatures seems like an over-expensive indulgence as merely game pieces (and I'm including the miniatures used in games like Descent/Imperial Assault and BattleLore).

Vermis wrote:
* From my own experience, sticking big, chunky, eye-catching spikes, teeth, armour trim, texture and such all over a model isn't the pinnacle, or the most difficult aspect, of the mini sculptor's art. Particularly not with a handy copy of Zbrush or whatever lying around. I'd debate that it makes a big injection-moulded knight worth £20.
It's relatively easy to sculpt a big, fangy, gnashy fictional monster that looks vaguely like a horse. Getting a sculpt to really look like an actual horse - notoriously difficult in art - is the more impressive, arguably work-intensive feat. There are a fair few mini sculptors who set out to do that, but couldn't quite manage it.

It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

I fall firmly into the hobby category, but without the goal of eventually fielding them and playing a game there's no real draw for me to just model and paint GW models. during my hiatus from playing for a few years I did still model, but I just made Apocalypse vehicles from scratch.

Even then I still built them in accordance with the rules with the thought that eventually I would get to field them.

Way back in the day I did play a few games where the model quality was a tad weaker then GW's, and it does make a difference to the over all experience of playing. For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.

 pox wrote:
For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.

I've never had the pleasure. :(

 Sqorgar wrote:

 pox wrote:
For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.

I've never had the pleasure. :(

Oh man, you gotta strong-arm people. My favorite events are escalation leagues, I always make a point to start a new army or faction with a focus on finished models. I usually try and give speed painting lessons during it, and spend as much time at the shop encouraging people to paint. (the last one we had I managed to finish TWO troop based armies by the end!)

I'd rather lose to a painted army then win against the gray or primer legions.

I know this is a derail, but that's one of my universal pet peeves, seeing the same mook week after week fielding more and more and more of the gray legion, until the blandness seeps out turning the shop into a black and white movie. I've stopped being mad about, and now just encourage painting as much as I can. Our local shopkeep has a universal rule, all painted models have hatred against unpainted ones, and its made quite the difference!

To keep it back on topic, that's one thing that I really like about the current trend of GW painting and modelling. Even if you don't agree with the prices, most army books have detailed painting guides that even novice gamers can follow and make fantastic looking figures. GW has always made good painting guides, but now they are very clear and precise. Cut-glue-base-shade-highlight-texture. all laid out in glorious color with the exact paint names spelled out. It even makes it easy for new players to know exactly what paints and brushes they will need!

I'm gonna go long-beard to end this scree with "PAINT YER' DAMN FIGURES!" (painted models even play better.)

Playing with unpainted models is a no-go for me. I wouldn't be rude to a friend or someone who wanted a game and deny one, but personally I won't field unpainted stuff. I'm not even a great painter, but tabletop standard is achievable by anyone and makes the game come to life. At that point I don't care about the game very much, I just enjoy watching the spectacle of the battle.

I remember back in the day as kids though we were lucky to have 1 fully painted unit and no empty movement tray proxies.

I'm taking part in my first ever tournament in a couple of weeks so am trying my hardest to get the army painted. Have 20 Bloodreavers, 5 Wrathmongers, a Bloodstoker, Mighty Lord of Khorne, Bloodthirster and Archaon to do... think I'll get all but the two centre-piece figures done in time but I don't want to rush those so it'll be just a base coat there.

Hero606v2 wrote:
Since October I've bought Archaon, Bloodthirster, Celestant Prime, Verminlord, Carnosaur, Engine of the Gods, Zombie Dragon, Frostheart Phoenix, Stormfiends and several others.
Guess I'm bucking the trend!

Then you are a perfect costumer for GW as its policy is to produce miniatures for collectors.

Sqorgar wrote:It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table.

I know a few hobbyists who say that the most enjoyable minis to paint are those with fairly flat or plain areas, and without a lot of extraneous details to fiddle with. I can't disagree too strongly. It's something I try to keep in mind with my own humble efforts, and what I consider one of the biggest compliments I've been paid, for one of my few sculpts that managed to get near a mould.

A horse is basically a solid color.

Nope. Even GW once put out painting articles showing the possible variety in 'bog-standard' horses.

From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

In a mass wargame, maybe. But you could argue that's part of the point. In a skirmish wargame...?

Well, as I and others have already said about the varanguard: they're so cluttered that from a distance, one blends in and loses it's shape and definition by itself.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

Quite possibly the biggest pike of gak I've read on the internet today.

I assume sir, you work for GW and are the art director behind such fantastic design ideas as skull acne, armour with so many spikes you can't move, maybe even chain flail axes...?

Thanks. Thanks so much.

/sigh

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Whale is a common term used in gaming industry (especially pay to play/freemium/mobile games) to describe consumes who pay the bulk of the money in the economy. Versus the minnows. I doubt he meant it as an insult. In most games of that type a small percentage of the consumers pay the vast bulk of the money, and most players don't pay at all, or only dip their toes in the water.

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

puree wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

sales have been going down for several years straight. Their revenues have been sliding around 3% a year if I recall in spite of dramatic cost cutting. And when your sales are dropping in a market (tabletop war gaming and board games) that is growing, you're doing something wrong.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

Quite possibly the biggest pike of gak I've read on the internet today.

I assume sir, you work for GW and are the art director behind such fantastic design ideas as skull acne, armour with so many spikes you can't move, maybe even chain flail axes...?

Thanks. Thanks so much.

/sigh

Yeah on recent GW minis I've been hating how little room there is to get good blends and transitions going. Freehand isn't really my thing but it's also hindered by it. I'd much rather take a regular horse and introduce some exaggerated shadows and highlights than have it a single colour broken up by random things popping out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

Sales have in fact been down for several years in a row now (probably closer to a decade here in Oz...). At this point it is quite consistent and GW have only been maintaining profits by cutting costs to the bone.

 argonak wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Whale is a common term used in gaming industry (especially pay to play/freemium/mobile games) to describe consumes who pay the bulk of the money in the economy. Versus the minnows. I doubt he meant it as an insult. In most games of that type a small percentage of the consumers pay the vast bulk of the money, and most players don't pay at all, or only dip their toes in the water.

I doubt that is true in tabletop wargaming because nearly everyone owns at least one rulebook and an army, and if they've got an army, they probably have a set of tools and paints, etc.

 jonolikespie wrote:

puree wrote:


If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

Sales have in fact been down for several years in a row now (probably closer to a decade here in Oz...). At this point it is quite consistent and GW have only been maintaining profits by cutting costs to the bone.

Quite possibly true, and GW are possibly doing something wrong. I'm just saying it is logically flawed to say the price rises are beyond some ceiling is proved by falling sales. Falling sales may point at that, equally it may point at something else, with the continuing price rises being a reaction to continuing falling sales, and not the cause, as they try to maintain profit on less sales. Or just totally unrelated or whatever. Causation/correlation.

If there is more evidence then it may be closer to being proven?, but that would be a due to a larger body of evidence, not falling sales on its own.

Aren't sales down less in the 6 months of AOS being released than when 8th launched?

Hero606v2 wrote:
Aren't sales down less in the 6 months of AOS being released than when 8th launched?

Not a clue, 8th was 2010 according to wikipedia (I can't remember the year, I assume they are right), but GW's investors relations page only goes back to 2012/2013 as far as I could tell. They don't really break down what sales are coming from what product lines though anyway.

There isn't a person here that can answer that question with any absolute fact because none of us have sales data.

2010 was a very rough year for GW games too because when 8th dropped there was also a lot of rage due to random terrain and random charges being introduced.

We lost a good 75% of our fantasy community that year to warmachine.

2015 is similar to 2010 in that regard (we also lost 75% of our fantasy community this year where I am to AoS)

auticus wrote:
There isn't a person here that can answer that question with any absolute fact because none of us have sales data.

2010 was a very rough year for GW games too because when 8th dropped there was also a lot of rage due to random terrain and random charges being introduced.

We lost a good 75% of our fantasy community that year to warmachine.

2015 is similar to 2010 in that regard (we also lost 75% of our fantasy community this year where I am to AoS)

Which would tell most companies to quit rebooting their rules, but GW is infamously dense. Tweaks are fine but radical changes to the core rules without working existing customers into the concepts and getting "buy-in" for the changes just results in hurt feelings and lost sales. Companies like PP engaged the community and made them part of the experience when they went from version 1 to 2 but GW is completely siloed to the point where customers appear to be a later afterthought.

I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

True but my point was/is that customers who feel appreciated and feel that they are receiving a good quality product and experience for their money are more resistant to price pressures. Price elasticity is still a thing. GW hit the barrier several years ago, went beyond it and continues to travel beyond the point where the majority of their customers were comfortable with spending for their product. I believe this is the direct result in both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are willing/able to spend....among other core issues.

 agnosto wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

True but my point was/is that customers who feel appreciated and feel that they are receiving a good quality product and experience for their money are more resistant to price pressures. Price elasticity is still a thing. GW hit the barrier several years ago, went beyond it and continues to travel beyond the point where the majority of their customers were comfortable with spending for their product. I believe this is the direct result in both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are willing/able to spend....among other core issues.

I apologize if I gave the idea that I had missed the point. I do agree with what you are saying - what I mean is that even with such a good customer care and relations, the current pricing makes it simply impossible for a lot of previous players to purchase as much as before (if at all in a few cases). I would love to be able to purchase as many models as I did back in 2009/10, but it's just not possible with how the prices have hiked - and in this I can easily push aside any disdain I may have for GW as a company. I really like my HE/DA... but it's just gone out of my wallet's league now.

As you said this situation is indeed the direct result of both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are able to spend for the products - and this seems to be something GW clearly isn't interested in knowing...

 agnosto wrote:

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Apple never interacted with their customers either. Every year, Apple fans would look forward to the two press conferences they would have, gnawing on rumors of all sorts of amazing things coming, only to get a new model MacBook that is thinner, lighter, has longer battery, and a new color brushed metal exterior. Secrecy, absentee customer relations, vertically integrated production, premium product line, their own retail stores - Games Workshop is basically Apple in every way that matters, except one.

The reason why it works for Apple and not GW is largely because Steve Jobs was so charismatic, he could sell ice cream to an Eskimo. Thinner? Lighter? Longer battery? Holy crap! I need it! But Tim Cook is decidedly less so, and Apple's keynotes have been getting less and less impressive every year. Jobs could've sold the iWatch to a fifth dimensional being with no concept of the passage of time.

GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices, and that can absolutely happen, but having such high prices before customer loyalty will be an uphill battle.

It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

No one has bottomless pockets, remember that.

If things keep going as they are, it really is only a matter of time before even the most hardcore GW fans simply become unable to purchase the models from a financial point of view (or is it economical? I can never remember).

Edit: Besides, we keep getting into these schisms between "us" and "them" (whoever those parties are), when deep down we really all are the same - we are all wargamers and hobbyists. *Sparkles fairy dust everywhere*

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

Money isn't the only cost in buying new models. It's cheaper to buy models in an ecosystem you already exist in than it is to change game systems, find new players, learn new rules, and build new armies. For instance, the Start Collecting Seraphon set fits into my Stormcast army/table as is, while starting a different game would require months of time and hundreds of dollars. In that way, you could say that the Seraphon box is ONLY $85.

 Sqorgar wrote:
GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices,

How?

What have they done to build goodwill with their customers in the last years? If anything, haven't they doubled down on secluding themselves from the outside world and shun any contact with the customers whatsoever?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Apple never interacted with their customers either. Every year, Apple fans would look forward to the two press conferences they would have, gnawing on rumors of all sorts of amazing things coming, only to get a new model MacBook that is thinner, lighter, has longer battery, and a new color brushed metal exterior. Secrecy, absentee customer relations, vertically integrated production, premium product line, their own retail stores - Games Workshop is basically Apple in every way that matters, except one.

The reason why it works for Apple and not GW is largely because Steve Jobs was so charismatic, he could sell ice cream to an Eskimo. Thinner? Lighter? Longer battery? Holy crap! I need it! But Tim Cook is decidedly less so, and Apple's keynotes have been getting less and less impressive every year. Jobs could've sold the iWatch to a fifth dimensional being with no concept of the passage of time.

GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices, and that can absolutely happen, but having such high prices before customer loyalty will be an uphill battle.

There's more to it than simply presenting product. The customer experience goes all the way through Apple's stores; you walk-in there are people who help you with products, answer questions, etc. Walk into a GW store, there's one person who pushes product that you may or may not be interested in ("Oh, you like Space Marines, well, buy these Firewarriors, they're just like Space Marines but without the armor, toughness, etc."). "Geniuses" in Apples stores are generally very helpful without being pushy. That's an example.

 Zywus wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices,

How?

What have they done to build goodwill with their customers in the last years? If anything, haven't they doubled down on secluding themselves from the outside world and shun any contact with the customers whatsoever?

* The return of Specialist Games
* Online sales, loyalty rewards, cheaper start collecting boxes
* Actually asking for input for the Warhammer TV advent calendar painting videos
* Free rules for AoS
* Actual customer interaction through email and facebook
* Showing and talking about new products more than a week in advance.
* Video play through of Betrayal at Calth with GW employees (also, plastic 30k)

GW has made a bunch of moves recently that were out of character that has spawned many discussions about whether the new CEO is turning things around for the company - while also selling $165 Archaon models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

There's more to it than simply presenting product. The customer experience goes all the way through Apple's stores; you walk-in there are people who help you with products, answer questions, etc. Walk into a GW store, there's one person who pushes product that you may or may not be interested in ("Oh, you like Space Marines, well, buy these Firewarriors, they're just like Space Marines but without the armor, toughness, etc."). "Geniuses" in Apples stores are generally very helpful without being pushy. That's an example.

I'm in a city with neither a GW store nor an Apple store, so I have to assume that those stores don't represent the totality of the customer experience. If anything, as someone who developed iOS apps, my personal interactions with Apple were anything but pleasant, but GW has had outstanding customer service. I had some broken parts in my AoS starter, emailed them, and had replacements in my hands two days later. They also sent me a burlap sack with an online order, and I hear current online orders come with wound counters.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

Money isn't the only cost in buying new models. It's cheaper to buy models in an ecosystem you already exist in than it is to change game systems, find new players, learn new rules, and build new armies. For instance, the Start Collecting Seraphon set fits into my Stormcast army/table as is, while starting a different game would require months of time and hundreds of dollars. In that way, you could say that the Seraphon box is ONLY $85.

Yep.

I can buy lots of GW miniatures or I can sock money away into my other hobby (investing) which actually generally earns more money over time. It's all perceived value; the model may look nice but I only am able to play the games several times per year due to work and family responsibilities and certainly don't have ample time to paint so my mad money generally goes into my stock portfolio instead these days.

Today's GW stock is about 545.50 pence per share (5.46 pounds). Let's say each share earns 20 pence per share (July). You could get about 10 shares of GW stock for the price of one of the new year new army bundles which would have earned you 200 pence (2 pounds). If I buy the equivalent of one of these bundles each month, I would have 600 pounds in stock by the end of 1 year or about 110 shares which would net me 2,198 pence or about 22 pounds per year plus the value of the stock. One or more years of delayed gratification would result in me being able to buy quite a bit of merch each year with just the dividends. Note that this assumes all things being equal.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Your general point about customer satisfaction is absolutely correct, of course. I didn't stop buying just because of the cost, it was also the fact that the rules were going to what I thought was a place I didn't want to follow them. I might have bought the new, unsatisfactory rules if they were a lot cheaper, or if GW had actually improved the rules, I would have been more likely to pay more for them. Beyond those factual points there is a more tenuous psychological satisfaction -- brand loyalty -- which isn't really based on rational factors. What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

I think the brand disloyalty was already there. If anything, GW games were begrudgingly played and the WHFB cancellation was the final nail in the coffin. I wouldn't say it was sudden either, as even outsiders like me were well aware of GW's popular opinion before AoS was ever announced. Frankly, I don't think people hated GW more. They already hated GW. They just started to hate AoS and AoS players too for what they saw as betrayal.

And AoS is following the typical early adoption curve. We've moved out of the "innovators" phase (less risk adverse, eager to leap on potential ideas, largely independent) and are into the "early adoption" part (starting to see community leaders emerging). AoS was a brand new game, and it does not seem to have either benefited or suffered greatly due to GW's reputation in so far as the adoption curve seems to go. The more conservative, set-in-their-ways players were never going to leap into a fledgling game with both feet. That was just never going to happen. The attitudes towards AoS players early on wouldn't have dissuaded innovators as they were perfectly okay not relying on existing community norms. It may have had negative repercussions for the whole of miniatures though, as people in the other adoption ranges would've avoided coming to the field due to the vitriol they found.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Your general point about customer satisfaction is absolutely correct, of course. I didn't stop buying just because of the cost, it was also the fact that the rules were going to what I thought was a place I didn't want to follow them. I might have bought the new, unsatisfactory rules if they were a lot cheaper, or if GW had actually improved the rules, I would have been more likely to pay more for them. Beyond those factual points there is a more tenuous psychological satisfaction -- brand loyalty -- which isn't really based on rational factors. What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

Very, very true. They lost me when they switched to hardback army books and just a rehash of the fluff in each one all with a shiny new, larger price tag. I can tolerate expensive models, I can tolerate expensive rules (all compared to competitors), what I am incapable of tolerating is both of those and generally shoddy rules for a game. That and being asked to buy another $50 ($80 for the main rulebook) book 1 year to 1 1/2 years after the release of the last one; if nothing else, it's just wasteful.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

Money isn't the only cost in buying new models. It's cheaper to buy models in an ecosystem you already exist in than it is to change game systems, find new players, learn new rules, and build new armies. For instance, the Start Collecting Seraphon set fits into my Stormcast army/table as is, while starting a different game would require months of time and hundreds of dollars. In that way, you could say that the Seraphon box is ONLY $85.

Man, you know prices suck in your country when the $140 (admittedly a great deal) 'get started' kits are still more expensive than buying into a new game.

 argonak wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Whale is a common term used in gaming industry (especially pay to play/freemium/mobile games) to describe consumes who pay the bulk of the money in the economy. Versus the minnows. I doubt he meant it as an insult. In most games of that type a small percentage of the consumers pay the vast bulk of the money, and most players don't pay at all, or only dip their toes in the water.

Thank you for the explanation, I never herd the term before at all.

* The return of Specialist Games
* Online sales, loyalty rewards, cheaper start collecting boxes
* Actually asking for input for the Warhammer TV advent calendar painting videos
* Free rules for AoS
* Actual customer interaction through email and facebook
* Showing and talking about new products more than a week in advance.
* Video play through of Betrayal at Calth with GW employees (also, plastic 30k)

GW has made a bunch of moves recently that were out of character that has spawned many discussions about whether the new CEO is turning things around for the company - while also selling $165 Archaon models.

* Specialist games have yet to return and the execution of these will tell a lot.
* the cheaper starter boxes is a good move.
* When did they ask for input? (genuinely curious)
* When did they interact on Facebook?
* The basic rules for free is a good start.
* More than a week in advance? Examples?

 MWHistorian wrote:

* When did they ask for input? (genuinely curious)

In November, they asked for input about what painting tutorials they should do for the Warhammer TV advent calendar, complete with an email address. I think there was a rumor thread about it.

* When did they interact on Facebook?

My bad. That was technically Warhammer World's facebook page - but it was big enough news that it that BoLS had an article about it called "GW: Warhammer Fantasy Still Welcome". Yeah, two strikes against me for using BoLS and not reading carefully.

* More than a week in advance? Examples?

Well, they showed upcoming Blood Bowl models at the 40th birthday party (not to mention announcing that Blood Bowl was coming back in the first place).

 Sqorgar wrote:
Yeah, two strikes against me for using BoLS and not reading carefully.

That's what you get for using BoLS in the first place

* More than a week in advance? Examples?

Well, they showed upcoming Blood Bowl models at the 40th birthday party (not to mention announcing that Blood Bowl was coming back in the first place).

Technically I believe that was FW showing those off. It's good, but GW themselves are still only announcing things when the preorders go up the week before release, and they are still themselves not communicating with their fans, just giving each store a facebook page and telling customers to take questions and whatnot there.

Roundtree does seem to be changing things, and it might just be taking a long time to reverse Kirby's stupid policies, but like MWHistorian said the implementation of the revived specialist games will speak volumes about GW's future I think.

They sent a bunch of the big podcasters AoS starter sets and the first campaign books.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Roundtree does seem to be changing things, and it might just be taking a long time to reverse Kirby's stupid policies, but like MWHistorian said the implementation of the revived specialist games will speak volumes about GW's future I think.

It's probably important not to put all your faith in the specialist games implementation. No matter how it is implemented, it is working against a lot of nostalgia. I wasn't around during the specialist games previously, but my guess is that they won't be very cheap, featuring fewer models overall, or simplified to the point where people get upset.

My argument for the first is that a lot of board game companies end up releasing revised editions with fewer models (Descent 2E and BattleLore 2E, for example) to reach a cheaper price point, and I doubt GW can even remotely approach the value that games had twenty years ago. And my argument for the second is that specialist games are the perfect beginner point into a hobby that desperately needs new blood, so they'd be fools if they kept the more esoteric rules of the original versions (think Betrayal at Calth - did anyone actually play the game part?). I'm not saying it will be like WHFB to AoS streamling, but it will probably be a bit. Mixed with the nostalgic factor and I just don't think they can live up to the lofty expectations everyone has for them.

I'm just saying, temper your expectations or you are bound to be disappointed. Ultimately, I think the specialist games will be a huge success - just not exactly with the people who are most looking forward to it.

We probably shouldn't count the return of specialist games as a success until they actually have released them. We have no way of knowing what the rules for the new Blood Bowl will look like.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
We probably shouldn't count the return of specialist games as a success until they actually have released them. We have no way of knowing what the rules for the new Blood Bowl will look like.

Indeed. Though it is something to look forward to, one should now put too much into this. We don't know how different the game will be from the original and we do not know how GW will price the box.

Though I really like BB, I can't see myself purchasing the box it for 100€+, for example... and I don't see GW pricing it under 100€.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Yeah, two strikes against me for using BoLS and not reading carefully.

That's what you get for using BoLS in the first place

* More than a week in advance? Examples?

Well, they showed upcoming Blood Bowl models at the 40th birthday party (not to mention announcing that Blood Bowl was coming back in the first place).

Technically I believe that was FW showing those off. It's good, but GW themselves are still only announcing things when the preorders go up the week before release, and they are still themselves not communicating with their fans, just giving each store a facebook page and telling customers to take questions and whatnot there.

Roundtree does seem to be changing things, and it might just be taking a long time to reverse Kirby's stupid policies, but like MWHistorian said the implementation of the revived specialist games will speak volumes about GW's future I think.

I was at the 40th bash and asked several designers and staff members about the new Fyreslayer models (that had already been leaked here and on other sites) and they all point blank denied knowledge of them.

@Davor:

I know it has been covered already, but I really want to stress I was not trying to be insulting to anyone for any reason. Vegas casino's have been using the term "Whale" for many decades now. It is a gambler who rolls into town and spends a whole lotta money gambling. To reach whale status, this number is often in the millions per year. (Or visit!)

They are know by name receive the best rooms, usually have a concierge assigned to them, and have everything but the gambling comped. It's not even an insult to the whale! most are aware of their status, and enjoy the five-star treatment they receive. (although that being said, I'm sure no one actually calls them "whales" to their face.)

When I use the term on a GW player, what I usually mean is that person has a lot of disposable income and spends a lot of it on models.