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

Think this will get a bit outside the scope of the original thread...so, here goes (feel free to suggest a better thread title as well):

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I think that the current lack of WD content is just another symptom - being a publicly held company is the disease.

Selling shares allowed them to expand quickly, but the share holders, for the most part, have little to no knowledge of the hobby.

What works for them is the Churn - folks in for the short time.

Not at all certain that there is a cure, outside of a buy back - which is unlikely in the extreme.

I have noticed none of the many companies that have been founded by ex-GW folks have gone public. Privateer, Mantic... both are doing okay, could be better, could be worse - but in the end they only have to answer to themselves and the folks buying their products.

The Auld Grump

I don't actually think the share holders are a problem. I would wager that the majority of them could care less about table top games, let alone how GW operates. They would no doubt prefer to see GW make a profit and pay dividends.

The disease is attempting to apply a lot of common MBA tricks to a company that can not operate like a regular business. For example, cost cutting in an electronics company is generally a good thing. Most people don't care who buys a Sony as they don't need to find other Sony users to watch TV with (unless they are having remote wars with a neighbor through their windows...). All the areas which are commonly on the chopping block and tactics which are used to maximize the profits for those companies kill the thing which drove GW from 10 million pounds a year in 1991 to 100+ million pounds a year in 2002 - community development.

From where I sit, the main changes began to happen in 2003 in terms of shifting from growing a community to focused on a traditional manufacturer philosophy of selling goods and moving on. Everyone will probably choose their own date, but for me - that is where it split most obviously. Prior to that, you had frequent GW sponsored tournaments and events which built the community and fostered interest in both new players and old alike. In particular, if you look at the man power numbers from their 2002 financial reports:

2002 2001 Production 324 359 Selling and distribution: Full time 1,224 1,133 Key time 631 483 Administration 303 232

and the most recent figures:

2012 2011 Design and Development 114 90 Production 172 163 Selling and distribution: Full time 1010 1032 Part time 254 233 Administration 412 383

Pardon the code blocks - but it is one of the easier ways to do formatted tables. You see drops in the production and design side of the house (2002 numbers combined the two groups while 2012 listed them as two distinct categories) as well as the actual number of retail/distribution employees. Administration and management - the bean counters and paper pushers have seen a dramatic upshot. That alone tells a story, especially considering that the company by and large is not significantly different now then it was then. They haven't had a dramatic shift in technology or products, and while there are probably fewer people working the spin casting machines - Finecast still keeps that as a large portion of their labor intensive production in place.

Since the management types who generally fill those types of positions, waiting for TPS reports and what not, generally are schooled in a particular train of thought of how a business like Sony or Ford should be run - they then attempt to apply those same tactics to a business like miniature gaming. The result is community discontent. As opposed to growing the community to grow their profits, they focus on attempting to find a maximum price point that will allow them to maintain the appearance of growth to satisfy share holders.

GW could very easily satisfy their shareholder and solve many of their current problems with the community by looking back at where they came from. Up until 2002-2003 period, they saw 10% growth minimum per year. Many years being much higher than that. After that, you had the LotR bubble and the subsequent panic of price hikes and the past 10 years since have shown no real growth (2003 FY at £129.1m and the 2012 FY closed out at £131.0m). 10 years, lots of price hikes and cost cutting (closing GW Canada, GW Spain and France...) and not even a £2m change in revenue. If it weren't for things like their DoW/FFG licenses and Black Library/Forge World doing exceptionally well (£10m plus for the combined FW/BL sales last year) GW would be doing even worse... Those two segments of their business though still operate in many ways like GW used to operate. They communicate as best they are able with their customers and manage to produce growth without running prices up.

10 years, lots of price hikes and cost cutting (closing GW Canada, GW Spain and France...) and not even a £2m change in revenue.

Yes, and people always bring up the number and figures about gw "growth" despite leaving this important fact out.

but at the end of the day, all humans really need are: faith, hope, and optimism.
kept humanity in working order forever

I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.

People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.

Middle management will be the death of us all.

GW is interested in only one thing: selling minis and the accessories that go with them (i.e. paints, decals, books, etc.). They are a miniatures company, unlike Catalyst Game Labs which prints only the books, they get someone else to do the casting of minis. These numbers clearly show that yes, they need to "Get back to where they once belonged" to quote a Beatles song. But it's apt I believe in this case as it's what made them so successful in such a niche market.

What I'm tired of seeing is:

1.)New editions coming out ever four or so years that make pretty much my entire army obsolete, forcing me to buy a thousand dollars worth of stuff (or more) just to stay current.

2.)Army books that take forever to release, only to see the last book is coming out just about when the next edition of the game is to being announced and close to release.

3.)Price points that are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most new players are kids that have mommy and daddy's money to spend and are usually spoiled-rotten little bastards I wouldn't entertain with a game if they paid me (with, of course, mommy and daddy's money).

4.)(And this seems to be a growing norm within the gaming community all around. No gaming company is responsible for bad behavior) aforementioned spoiled-rotten little bastards and the snot-nosed larger spoiled-rotten bastards they turn into. You know who you are and yes, I'm calling each and every one of you man-and-woman children out with this post. Get a life, get out of your parent's basement, and start acting like adults. You guys are despicable. I've tried getting friends who are interested in Warmachine and 40k to play, but when I took them to the local gaming store, the actions of these "children-in-adult-bodies" were enough to turn them off. Even after I tell them that not all gamers are like that, they still said no and wanted to leave the store just to get away from the man-children inside. None of them wanted to come back. Some of them like to call victory a turn before as they can "predict" how the turn will go, I've even had one guy show it to me. I screwed him up by simply smashing forward with everything in a game of 40k, dropping all tactical acumen. The s.o.b. then had the audacity to start bitching to the store owner. I'd won and he hated it. I sold my Chaos Marines stuff after that. I've got better things to do (and I'm not desperate enough) than to play a game that is actually quite useless (like jewelry useless) with a bunch of babies.

I see the core problem with Mr Kirby changing the operations at GW, to something that was easy to explain to shareholders, rather than define what they actually use to do.

'We developed an interesting and diverse set of game worlds that inspire people to play our games , and buy our associated minatures and other hobby products.'
Is what OLD GW actually did really well.

But apparently he could not be bothered trying to explain how developing an appealing game setting and good game rules drives AND sustains sales..

So changed it to '..we are in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children..'Which takes no explanation, but is about 1/10th of what GW used to be about.
The other 90% was attracting gamers of other age groups AND KEEPING THEM INTERESTED FOR LONGER.

I agree the shareholders are not the problem.
Just the short sighted focus on maximizing short term profit , with such a detrimental effect on long term viability of GW.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.

People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.

I predict the next financial report will be GWs best yet, but within the next 3 years Kirby will bail and the company will implode because they simply won't have anything left to pad their numbers with.

 jonolikespie wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.

People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.

I predict the next financial report will be GWs best yet, but within the next 3 years Kirby will bail and the company will implode because they simply won't have anything left to pad their numbers with.

Looking at the various issues and events in the last year, I would actually expect this years FY report to be mildly better than the 2012 report...or almost exactly the same. Even with the large number of new releases in the past 9 months and what we believe will be coming in the next 3 months or so till the end of the FY, even with 9 licenses granted so far this year, even with a couple of major releases (The Hobbit, Flyers, 6th Edition 40K) the half year numbers were anemic - and they sort of have hit a wall in what they can do for generating revenue by traditional business management tactics.

You will no doubt see a rush near the cut-off for the new trade terms as some of the companies who may be loosing their suppliers stock up on goods. You will probably also see two or three more significant releases for each system between now and then - but the disease remains. Without putting a concerted effort back into developing their player base, they won't have the impetus behind them that they once had. Most the people who I talk to directly buy GW products begrudgingly, not because they are excited of the next new and shiney thing, rather because they feel they are boxed in and "have" to in order to keep up with the new rules.

 GreySkull wrote:

1.)New editions coming out ever four or so years that make pretty much my entire army obsolete, forcing me to buy a thousand dollars worth of stuff (or more) just to stay current.

Which armies became obsolete with 6? Please, enlighten us.

2.)Army books that take forever to release, only to see the last book is coming out just about when the next edition of the game is to being announced and close to release.

They've clearly begun addressing this. 3 40k codeces (or did chaos come out in 4Q2012?) so far this year, with another in April. This point would be more relevant if it wasnt something they were directly working to change.

3.)Price points that are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most new players are kids that have mommy and daddy's money to spend and are usually spoiled-rotten little bastards I wouldn't entertain with a game if they paid me (with, of course, mommy and daddy's money).

Angry much? While anecdotal, this isn't my experience at all. None of our 3 LGS ever seem to have anyone younger than 18 playing in store. Every time I've been In the local GW everyone there has been around 20ish. You're obviously bitter about something here.

4.)(And this seems to be a growing norm within the gaming community all around. No gaming company is responsible for bad behavior) aforementioned spoiled-rotten little bastards and the snot-nosed larger spoiled-rotten bastards they turn into. You know who you are and yes, I'm calling each and every one of you man-and-woman children out with this post. Get a life, get out of your parent's basement, and start acting like adults. You guys are despicable. I've tried getting friends who are interested in Warmachine and 40k to play, but when I took them to the local gaming store, the actions of these "children-in-adult-bodies" were enough to turn them off. Even after I tell them that not all gamers are like that, they still said no and wanted to leave the store just to get away from the man-children inside. None of them wanted to come back. Some of them like to call victory a turn before as they can "predict" how the turn will go, I've even had one guy show it to me. I screwed him up by simply smashing forward with everything in a game of 40k, dropping all tactical acumen. The s.o.b. then had the audacity to start bitching to the store owner. I'd won and he hated it. I sold my Chaos Marines stuff after that. I've got better things to do (and I'm not desperate enough) than to play a game that is actually quite useless (like jewelry useless) with a bunch of babies.

I dunno. Are you sure you have "better things to do?" Because from this, it looks like angry, petulant Internet whining is your "better thing ". Guess what---and this is going to sound crazy---you can actually play this game AT YOUR OWN PLACE if you don't like the people at your local store. Insane, right? Maybe instead of going on an Internet tirade, you should do some yoga or lift some weights as your "better thing" because you clearly need to vent some of that nerd rage.

@O'Brien - If you had to guess, what so you think the terms and $$ amounts is for the licensing? I have no idea what they typically are for tablet/mobile products.

Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.

 cincydooley wrote:


@O'Brien - If you had to guess, what so you think the terms and $$ amounts is for the licensing? I have no idea what they typically are for tablet/mobile products.

All depends on how they want to work the contract. I would guess that GW will be wanting to front load license fees and take a smaller cut on the actual royalties after the fact if they are trying to do what I think they are doing. I would be surprised though if they managed to eek out more than a few hundred grand on upfront license costs from each of the licensees - so maybe an additional $2-3 million given that we are up to 9 licenses this year. Most of the time though, you don't see a whole lot of income for a license - the benefit is that you don't expend much to get that money.

A lot of licenses are written with weird tiered clauses, where the developer might pay a fee upfront to begin development and the ability to shop it around to publishers with the understanding that they have secured the rights for publication. Assuming that they complete the development cycle (an amazingly high number of video games never do) they then move to the next stage. In most cases it involves some form of either flat rate (licensor gets 5% of total revenue) or a formula like the licensor gets 1% of revenue until the company makes 100,000 sales and then 5% until their are a million sales and then 10% for all sales above one million (LucasArts tended to favor the tiered method - though now they are Disney, I am not familiar with their contracts).

Since so many of the new contracts are to mobile developers though, that will no doubt hamstring their potential. The other issue will no doubt be push back in the coming months as all these mobile developers look at what GW had done to them. It is pretty easy to make a game that is reasonably successful based on a property like GW's. It becomes much harder when the owner of that property floods the market with competing games.

They've clearly begun addressing this. 3 40k codeces (or did chaos come out in 4Q2012?) so far this year, with another in April. This point would be more relevant if it wasnt something they were directly working to change.

Like I said though, and then what? GW counts on their staggered release schedule to get them through year over year by normalizing their sales. The rush of releases breaks that practice, and it will no doubt result in a point that they can no longer sustain releases (either they run out of stuff in ready to go at GW or the consumer/retailer no longer feel the need to keep up). Because they are publicly traded, normalized sales are important since that is what the shareholders like to see. It is hard to explain that sales have dropped off by 30% for a year because all the Codices are up to date and it isn't time for a new edition of rules to be released.

The easy way to fix that issue of course would be to go to army lists and rules that are updated on the fly. You still do the core rules at new editions, and codex books for fluff and stuff - but by leaving things open and available online between releases, they can add products at a steady stream as opposed to pulses like they do now. With a little bit of imagination, they should be able to work that into the community development by doing event related releases (something like the Forgeworld Campaign book items) where you might have a global gaming event through the year and have new kits released for the various factions along the way.

Barring that though, they will probably end up having to put the breaks on releases in short order or risk hitting that zone where they haven't released anything new in 6-12 months near the end of an editions lifespan. That would cause investors to panic no doubt, which would be a bad thing.

Angry much? While anecdotal, this isn't my experience at all. None of our 3 LGS ever seem to have anyone younger than 18 playing in store. Every time I've been In the local GW everyone there has been around 20ish. You're obviously bitter about something here.

I am pretty sure we had covered this before - but you have to recall that there is a certain point where when enough anecdotal evidence is presented that you have to assume there must be some level of truth to that.

By GW's own words (don't have it handy - but you can find the site survey documents on the GW website where they call out their target demographic) they go after teenaged kids, generally in the 14-18 range. Even if you were to extend that to 20ish, the result tends to be the same. Most 20 year olds have limited money of their own, and tend to either be spending their parents money...student loan money...or my money (in the form of a Pell grant or other form of government income). True, some are working hard and have their own income - but if they are 20 and living at home, then mommy and daddy are still subsidizing their hobby (by allowing them to buy a Landraider as opposed to groceries, rent, utilities...).

Granted, the last half of his point did get a bit off the rails - but the general principle does apply.

Which armies became obsolete with 6? Please, enlighten us.

I have to admit, I have not been following GW rules for several years - so it is speculation, but the normal pattern is something like a particular format of a particular army list becomes obsolete - not the book as a whole. For example, special units (elites and fast attack) might have had a benefit in one edition of the rules while basic troops are somewhat pointless other than just being meat shields. The next edition, they might write a rule that requires troops in order for them to be scoring units. The next edition might emphasize vehicles over infantry.

While none of them actually make an army obsolete in the same way that...say...buggy wheels have become obsolete, they do make existing armies uncompetitive and are actually designed as an attempt to sell more miniatures. That is one of the biggest reasons that the rules are rewritten every few years. The mechanics of the game are not significantly changed from edition to edition - but what will work the best on the table does.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
While none of them actually make an army obsolete in the same way that...say...buggy wheels have become obsolete, they do make existing armies uncompetitive and are actually designed as an attempt to sell more miniatures. That is one of the biggest reasons that the rules are rewritten every few years. The mechanics of the game are not significantly changed from edition to edition - but what will work the best on the table does.

+1

silent25 wrote:
Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.

2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).

Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?

ARMIES becoming Obsolete:
Sisters of Battle are but one of the armies which are fast becoming obsolete. much like the Squat before them, they being a at the time "new army for warhammer 40k" has been moved to the backbench (wheras the squat were removed largely on the most part, from 90% of BG fluff), in favour of the Tau (which for the most part has been mid-range in success), expanding the necrons and dark eldar ranges (of which came after the SOB in "new army/faction").

Codex's:
SOB 1st and only codex (1997), next time they had release ie codex inclusion was in codex witch hunters, as allies (before you actually could field allies and after they removed that "rule" from 2nd-3rd edition 40k). they recieved a Official update approx x2 times (x4 articles over a 10 year period),

TAU: released in 2001-2002: codex (1st), then waited 3-5 years for 2nd codex, which was atleast 2 editions seperated from the then current ruleset,

Dark Eldar: released 1998-2001, first codex, waited 9 years (til 2009-10) for 2nd which was used right up until 6th edition (but they did do a flyer wave of DE miniatures, some failcast, etc)

Space marines (this one is bad example, but read as EOT/Armageddon and other standalone chapter specific codex's).

Ork: this one is a fine example of an army/list becoming obsolete. evolving from the space ork codex released way back in 1994, to the thin piece of gak green ork codex (48 page) in 2001, then waited a full 6 years further for a new codex, which featured nerfed units.

there are others but they are warhammer fantasy.

each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible unless 1. you had the money and insight to buy hordes of mini's in that boom age from 1997-2004 or 2. have simply been priced out of the hobby and this no longer affects you (note this is a hotbed idea, some agree/disagree on exact term meaning)

Each army needs a new direction from time to time but where is the need to keep updating rulesets then having countless Q&A, updates, new expansions rinse then repeat. i for one have followed that for last 18-20 years. and have watched as countless codex's have been revised and then some more only a few short years later. it opens up opputunity for newbs but it sends veterans away (largely has been noted elsewhere in this thread already as such)....

i have tried to be clear and concise where i could afford to do so

I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.

 Goliath wrote:
I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.

The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:

each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible

Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
ARMIES becoming Obsolete:
Sisters of Battle are but one of the armies which are fast becoming obsolete

You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.

The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
much like the Squat before them, they being a at the time "new army for warhammer 40k" has been moved to the backbench (wheras the squat were removed largely on the most part, from 90% of BG fluff), in favour of the Tau (which for the most part has been mid-range in success), expanding the necrons and dark eldar ranges (of which came after the SOB in "new army/faction").

You use an army dropped 20 years ago for your proof GW makes armies obsolete?

Try picking one more recent. And again, Sisters of Battle are not them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.

The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:

each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible

Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.

The answer is not there, because none of them have become obsolete between 5th and 6th. Maybe some new purchases were desirable, but obsolete?

Sorry, no.

Most assault based armies got a rather nice swift kick. Dark Eldar Wyches got a real nasty wake up call. Many units lost desirability like genestealers and other melee outflankers. Melee units can no longer hit what were classified as fast skimmers and now are flyers. I don't know about full armies, but sections of many armies became less attractive.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.

2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).

Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?

Very good points which also points to three other derivatives I see.

1.) LotR didn't really add a whole heck of a lot to normal growth patterns. 15% before then 18% with LotR.
2.) If I recall, around 2002/2003 time frame, GW also stopped the practice of releasing new games. In the 90s, they still kept the practice of expanding the hobby further with other games (Epic, Mordheim, Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, etc.).
3.) With a £2 change in actual in revenues from 2001 to 2012 - to stay FLAT with 2001 performance, with no growth whatsoever, given the rate of inflation, revenues would need to be £167 in 2012. Effectively, GW has been declining for the last decade. Before anyone comments that the rate of inflation doesn't matter, I have been investing for over 25 years and likewise have investors in my own company. Beating the rate of inflation every year is indeed a very important factor in investing, otherwise our money isn't growing and I might a well leave it in the bank to collect interest.

GW is showing all the signs of a company on the verge of imploding right now. They have forgotten how to grow the company so instead focus on growing the margins. This is always a temporary fix at best (just ask the management at Kodak how well this strategy works). I think it was encapsulated best above that they used to focus on growing the hobby when now their only focus is on selling toy soldiers. This changes the dynamic of the price competition as a result and GW is NOT in any way, shape, or form, competitive in the "toy soldier" business based on their current ludicrous price points.

Changes in the rules in a new edition change the way combat works.

Taken as a body of work, the codexes are on average an edition or more behind the current rules.

Thus it is inevitable that even fairly "new" armies like Wyches change in effectiveness.

Assault based armies got a big improvement in the change from 4th to 5th edition. And to be fair to them, there aren't really any assault armies which aren't also reasonably good at shooting. Whereas there are shooty armies which are crap at assault.

 -Loki- wrote:
You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.

The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.

Sisters are a current, legal army?

Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?

 Sidstyler wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.

The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.

Sisters are a current, legal army?

Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?

QFT

I can buy sisters models from GW but I can't get rules to play them, therefore that line is largely obsolete.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.

The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.

Sisters are a current, legal army?

Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?

QFT

I can buy sisters models from GW but I can't get rules to play them, therefore that line is largely obsolete.

They should just kick the whole SoB line over to Forgeworld, they'd get better treatment there.

Meanwhile, my Bretonnian's feel pretty out of date in 8th ed, especially with a codex written 10 years and 2 editions ago, especially since cavalry, the main focus of the army, got a kick in the pants in 8th. While not unplayable as a faction, my army (traditional cav heavy) needs about $400 of improvements just to make it into a reasonably playble force, and still wouldn't be able to play with the big boys. So instead it gathers dust, and I pursue other games.

GW's metagame is to cycle armies in and out of popularity to stimulate purchase of more than one force.

SMs are the exception. They are always kept popular by the variety of codexes available for variants. This is to maintain their appeal to new users.

The business would stagnate without this strategy, as GW aren't interested in making other games.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.

The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:

each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible

Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.

It's a fair point I suppose. My Pre-Heresy army has become a nice staple in my display cabinet, but that's all at the moment. A couple of games of being carpet bombed by unpainted tomix toys has kind of damaged the enjoyment of the game for me. And I can't fight fire with fire; those SM aircraft have no place in a pre-heresy army fluff wise (which I guess should be important, as I've spent hundreds of hours converting and making the army so it 'looks' right) and even if they did, I wouldn't want such crappy models serving as a centrepiece for the army, which they would do if they were present.

The alternative of course would be to make a 'counts as' flyer and convert something, but I have to be honest the wind has been blown out of my sales a bit. The past 3-4 years of GW seemingly completely ignoring the world of conversion, of stifling artistic additions to miniatures on behalf of the player, has started to create an atmosphere of 'why can't you just use the models and colour scheme on the box?' kind of mentality amongst younger players. Those who can't remember the massive encouragement of adding your own twist to the force, and where conversions were the norm rather than the exception, made by that weird older guy in the corner of the store. Now that the company seems to be trying to crush the bits sellers, a consequence will be that this trend continues still further.

But, interesting OP in any case, and something I completely agree with.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW's metagame is to cycle armies in and out of popularity to stimulate purchase of more than one force.

SMs are the exception. They are always kept popular by the variety of codexes available for variants. This is to maintain their appeal to new users.

The business would stagnate without this strategy, as GW aren't interested in making other games.

Which leads to the question again...what is going to happen when they run out of armies to update in this new fast paced period of releases?

Sort of leads me back around to something which Wayshuba mentioned and I had forgotten to expound on.

While the LotR on their own would not have had a huge impact when the last of the movies was released, GW went ahead and put all their eggs in 3 baskets at the same time by moving Specialist Games from regular distribution...canceling magazines like Citadel Journal, Inquisitor, Epic...gutting White Dwarf. As a result, when the LotR games did drop off in popularity the impact was much greater than it would have been had the game been one in a larger pool.

I've included two different sets of data here - though unfortunately, I couldn't find my annotated data set for the half year results. You can plot significant events within the scope of a six month period and see how those events may have played a part in the overall health of the company.

GW have introduced extensions to the core game in the form of the Cities of Death, Planetstrike and Fliers add-ons, with accompanying model kits.

(I assume there is similar for Fantasy though I don't follow it.)

This seems to be their strategy rather than producing a variety of board games and specialist games.

I think their strategy is false.

Do your charts show revenue adjusted for inflation?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do your charts show revenue adjusted for inflation?

No - but I have those, I didn't want to overwhelm things with the charts as I thought those two sort of illustrated the key issue (I also didn't want to load up too many images that are on the fringe of wargaming).

GW have introduced extensions to the core game in the form of the Cities of Death, Planetstrike and Fliers add-ons, with accompanying model kits.

Cities of Death and Planetstrike always seemed like half hearted attempts. The terrain which came following CoD was sort of a needed function without CoD, and they never bothered to fully capitalize on a lot of the things which they discussed in the text of the Codex.

The flyers are still a bit too new to say for certain. It is certainly a better start so far than what came from Apocalypse. That is another one where they could have shifted one kit from the Forge World Catalog per army over to plastic and made a lot of people happy. Instead, you have two Bane tank kits and a pile of Ork. It would also have provided legs for the expansion to continue on past the flurry at release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Went ahead and tossed in the inflation adjusted chart. It uses inflation data from the "Office for National Statistics" from the UK since all the numbers are in GBP.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And to be fair to them, there aren't really any assault armies which aren't also reasonably good at shooting. Whereas there are shooty armies which are crap at assault.

Genestealer Rush had near zero shooting (since a massive portion of the army had BS0) and is essentially useless in 6th.

Now, Tyranids gained significantly in other ways, but the 100 Genestealers sitting on my shelf make me sad.

Genestealer Rush isn't an army in the sense of it being the whole of what is capable with a codex.

Back to Sean_OBrien, I agree with you essentially. GW haven't supported CoD or PlanetStrike and probably won't support Fliers (which doesn't fit into 40K anyway except as a means for selling each faction one or two expensive models.) Apocalypse and Planetary Empires might well be added to the list while we are on the topic.

Inflation adjusted charts are important to judge whether GW are increasing their revenues.