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.

filbert wrote:
If they did say that, then they failed. The price of a Canis Wolfborn has increased £5 from £25 to £30 since the switch to resin, which is a 20% increase on the supposedly cheaper material. Not to mention the Blood Knight box which has jumped exponentially.

A 20% increase is still less than the ~25-26% increase that just the price of tin would impose. Next Bloodknights went from $90 to $99 is a 10% increase... still less than a tin imposed ~25-26% increase.

filbert wrote:
Isn't it more likely that GW are using this as a smokescreen to lower their costs, hike their prices, make a bit more money and squeeze a bit more money out of the stone? We saw the same thing last year; cut the operating costs to mask the drop in sales. Same again here - raise the prices and it will help hide the falling sales figures.

Is it likely some percent of the new material cost change over is being absorbed by the higher price rather than from their profit margin?-Most likely, but the prices of materials don't lie... and GW's financials wouldn't lie in this way. If raising the price was their sole concern why bother with any material change. If it was just about saving money over the old value of materials why make the change now and not then? You treat it like GW's been sitting on this material formula that could save them a ton for all the years and have chosen not to use it till now... only to justify something that was inevitable? There had to be some cost/benefit tipping point to justify it or they would have done it a while ago. Something new happened to push this and that was the unexpectedly higher cost of materials.

aka_mythos wrote:

filbert wrote:
So GW have done all this to keep costs low and to cut their loyal customers some slack?

Wow, someone should tell PP and all those other manufacturer's who still use white metal - they must be losing a fortune!

I never said that. Chances are they said "We'll use this alternate material because a 25% price increase will cause sale volumes to drop off too much."

GW's a bigger company and have to deal with greater overhead. Their financials don't lie. 400% markup to produce only 9.5% percent profit, which is not the best situation. A company like PP is probably small enough that they only deal with 200-300% markups to gain a similar margin, that lower ratio of cost and necessary markup make it easier for a company to absorb rising costs. In absolute sales volume and dollar value GW is king in this industry.

Uh, GW, as a larger company should have larger costs of production? They do have more overhead, but it's nothing to do with being larger, it's their international chain of retail stores, which create a unique series of problems for GW (but which, in fairness, they consider worth the cost).

You have to remember that the production costs for these minis is almost entirely made up of non-raw materials costs. Yes, the cost of the white metal increased by quite a bit, but the white metal never made up much of the costs of the item anyway. The labor, packaging, stocking, storage and so on are most of the cost.

BrassScorpion wrote:Then my point stands. The Shokk Attack Gun is a lot more than just a Big Mek mini and it was always much more expensive than the other Big Mek miniatures. People refer to that kit as the Shokk Attack Gun, not a Big Mek. It's the artillery piece in the kit that sells it and it's been more than $30 for ages because of it, if people want just a Big Mek they buy a Big Mek, not an expensive Shokk Attack Gun. The Shokk Attack Gun was already $35 before the latest price hike, it only went up $3. There's nothing new about that kit being very expensive as I already pointed out. Go ahead, think about that for a while and stop being obtuse, silly and rude.

Heh, always nice to see the old 'you're wrong because I have defined the terms differently, neener neener' argument come out and stretch its legs.

Buzzsaw wrote:
GW's a bigger company and have to deal with greater overhead. Their financials don't lie. 400% markup to produce only 9.5% percent profit, which is not the best situation...quote]

Uh, GW, as a larger company should have larger costs of production? They do have more overhead, but it's nothing to do with being larger, it's their international chain of retail stores, which create a unique series of problems for GW (but which, in fairness, they consider worth the cost).

You have to remember that the production costs for these minis is almost entirely made up of non-raw materials costs. Yes, the cost of the white metal increased by quite a bit, but the white metal never made up much of the costs of the item anyway. The labor, packaging, stocking, storage and so on are most of the cost.

While what you say is true it only compounds the issue at hand. I'm saying the material costs alone were enough to justify the shift in retail price of GW's products higher. All those other things are just additional costs on top of that whose shifts would only further push the price.

Also lets not confuse their cost of production with overhead, operation expenses. They need to cover more overhead but it isn't a direct component in the cost of production. My point was that their financials show an across the board 400% markup over their cost of sales, which includes manufacturing cost and materials of the sold product... that doesn't include "operation expenses" for running retail outlets and product developement. Those are actually irrelevent for this. Those thing impact profitability but we're addressing a specific change that is represented on a single line of their financials.

The revenue from sales relative cost of sales is the ratio showing how much they need to add to products value to get the sales price to achieve their current profit margin.

aka_mythos wrote:

filbert wrote:
If they did say that, then they failed. The price of a Canis Wolfborn has increased £5 from £25 to £30 since the switch to resin, which is a 20% increase on the supposedly cheaper material. Not to mention the Blood Knight box which has jumped exponentially.

A 20% increase is still less than the ~25-26% increase that just the price of tin would impose. Next Bloodknights went from $90 to $99 is a 10% increase... still less than a tin imposed ~25-26% increase.

This is a good example of what I was saying: you have to remember that the amount of raw materials is almost insignificant in these kits.

I just weighed a metal 40K model, and it came in at 1/4 of an ounce (granted, it's a kitchen scale, but it's a primed and based model, so let's call it even).

Suppose tin is $8 a pound (50 cents an ounce), that metal model has a raw material cost of 12.5 cents. Suppose that tin then goes to $16 an ounce (which is about what it is now, I believe), that same model has had it's raw material costs double, but the costs are still only 25 cents. Put another way, it's still an insignificant proportion of the cost.

puma713 wrote:So what's more likely? That I was talking about the SAG Big Mek, which is almost as much as 3 Killa Kans, or that I was talking about a regular ole Big Mek, which is not almost as much as 3 Killa Kans?

FWIW, I got ya pretty easily. I don't buy Orks, but perusing the GW website, I saw a mini called "Big Mek" with Shokk Gun for $38, which is surprisingly close to $44.50. Huh.

aka_mythos wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
GW's a bigger company and have to deal with greater overhead. Their financials don't lie. 400% markup to produce only 9.5% percent profit, which is not the best situation...quote]

Uh, GW, as a larger company should have larger costs of production? They do have more overhead, but it's nothing to do with being larger, it's their international chain of retail stores, which create a unique series of problems for GW (but which, in fairness, they consider worth the cost).

You have to remember that the production costs for these minis is almost entirely made up of non-raw materials costs. Yes, the cost of the white metal increased by quite a bit, but the white metal never made up much of the costs of the item anyway. The labor, packaging, stocking, storage and so on are most of the cost.

While what you say is true it only compounds the issue at hand. I'm saying the material costs alone were enough to justify the shift in retail price of GW's products higher. All those other things are just additional costs on top of that whose shifts would only further push the price.

Also lets not confuse their cost of production with overhead, operation expenses. They need to cover more overhead but it isn't a direct component in the cost of production. My point was that their financials show an across the board 400% markup over their cost of sales, which includes manufacturing cost and materials of the sold product... that doesn't include "operation expenses" for running retail outlets and product developement. Those are actually irrelevent for this. Those thing impact profitability but we're addressing a specific change that is represented on a single line of their financials.

The revenue from sales relative cost of sales is the ratio showing how much they need to add to products value to get the sales price to achieve their current profit margin.

I apologize, I am really not getting what you are trying to say here: my original comment was a reaction to the comment "GW's a bigger company and have to deal with greater overhead. Their financials don't lie. 400% markup to produce only 9.5% percent profit, which is not the best situation. A company like PP is probably small enough that they only deal with 200-300% markups to gain a similar margin, that lower ratio of cost and necessary markup make it easier for a company to absorb rising costs. In absolute sales volume and dollar value GW is king in this industry."

Rather then try and discern what you meant, let me state my point as: a larger company will have larger costs, but they will be proportionally smaller when tied to the amount of production. This is the efficiency of large scale operations, and it should exist at all levels of production. A smaller company should not be able to do the same things cheaper on a unit per unit basis, absent a confounding factor (like union rules, bad business decisions, so on).

I'm saying the material costs alone were enough to justify the shift in retail price of GW's products higher.

See, here I am just not seeing where you are coming from: assume a cost of tin at $16 per pound, a weight of 1/4 ounce for a model and a model MSRP of $10. The cost of the tin is 25cents of $10, or 2.5%. The price of tin doubling (to $32 per pound) would increase that to 50cents of the $10 MSRP. But instead of increasing the price by 2.5%, they have increased the price by... 15%? 20%?

Buzzsaw wrote:This is a good example of what I was saying: you have to remember that the amount of raw materials is almost insignificant in these kits.

I just weighed a metal 40K model, and it came in at 1/4 of an ounce (granted, it's a kitchen scale, but it's a primed and based model, so let's call it even).

Suppose tin is $8 a pound (50 cents an ounce), that metal model has a raw material cost of 12.5 cents. Suppose that tin then goes to $16 an ounce (which is about what it is now, I believe), that same model has had it's raw material costs double, but the costs are still only 25 cents. Put another way, it's still an insignificant proportion of the cost.

I never said its a good way, just the way they're justifying it.

Their cost of sales is marked up 400% to achieve the revenue to produce a 9.5% profit. Whatever goofy formula they use and regardless of price increase, this is something thats been relatively consistent. So maybe I'm wrong in trying to justify it with a single surge of material costs, but you also have other materials in the alloy... you still have waste material that isn't present in the model you use as an example... and you have inflation. Everything from GW I've seen shows their profit margin and markup are two things they hold relatively consistent, year to year.

IF GW is really trying to pull a fast one we will see it next time they post their financial statement.

aka_mythos wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:This is a good example of what I was saying: you have to remember that the amount of raw materials is almost insignificant in these kits.

I just weighed a metal 40K model, and it came in at 1/4 of an ounce (granted, it's a kitchen scale, but it's a primed and based model, so let's call it even).

Suppose tin is $8 a pound (50 cents an ounce), that metal model has a raw material cost of 12.5 cents. Suppose that tin then goes to $16 an ounce (which is about what it is now, I believe), that same model has had it's raw material costs double, but the costs are still only 25 cents. Put another way, it's still an insignificant proportion of the cost.

I never said its a good way, just the way they're justifying it.

Their cost of sales is marked up 400% to achieve the revenue to produce a 9.5% profit. Whatever goofy formula they use and regardless of price increase, this is something thats been relatively consistent. So maybe I'm wrong in trying to justify it with a single surge of material costs, but you also have other materials in the alloy... you still have waste material that isn't present in the model you use as an example... and you have inflation. Everything from GW I've seen shows their profit margin and markup are two things they hold relatively consistent, year to year.

IF GW is really trying to pull a fast one we will see it next time they post their financial statement.

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to untangle what you think, as opposed to what you believe is GW's strategy; when you say;

I'm saying the material costs alone were enough to justify the shift in retail price of GW's products higher.

Is that what you think, or are you saying that is the fig leaf GW is using to justify this price raise? As I said "assume a cost of tin at $16 per pound, a weight of 1/4 ounce for a model and a model MSRP of $10. The cost of the tin is 25cents of $10, or 2.5%. The price of tin doubling (to $32 per pound) would increase that to 50cents of the $10 MSRP."

Even a 10% increase in increase in MSRP is almost an order of magnitude greater then the amount of costs incurred by the increase in material costs.

Buzzsaw wrote:
Rather then try and discern what you meant, let me state my point as: a larger company will have larger costs, but they will be proportionally smaller when tied to the amount of production. This is the efficiency of large scale operations, and it should exist at all levels of production. A smaller company should not be able to do the same things cheaper on a unit per unit basis, absent a confounding factor (like union rules, bad business decisions, so on).

I'm saying that a larger company like GW that functions mostly by greater sales volume is more quickly impacted by small changes in material price. That their high markup to achieve a particular profit margin only compounds the problems for consumers.

It takes less than a 30% cost to produce increase to wipe out all of GW's profits, such that they break even and lose what they could have made just leaving their money in the bank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Buzzsaw wrote:
Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to untangle what you think, as opposed to what you believe is GW's strategy; when you say;

I think you're being fair. I don't think I'm perfectly right. I've meant mostly what I said as a matter of explaining in general terms why even a "cost savings" could still result in a price increase. Its started out in general terms, but I think the examples gone a little out of control and my language may have shifted towards being more absolute than I intended.

Buzzsaw wrote:

I'm saying the material costs alone were enough to justify the shift in retail price of GW's products higher.

Is that what you think, or are you saying that is the fig leaf GW is using to justify this price raise? As I said "assume a cost of tin at $16 per pound, a weight of 1/4 ounce for a model and a model MSRP of $10. The cost of the tin is 25cents of $10, or 2.5%. The price of tin doubling (to $32 per pound) would increase that to 50cents of the $10 MSRP."

Even a 10% increase in increase in MSRP is almost an order of magnitude greater then the amount of costs incurred by the increase in material costs.

The missing link here is that all of what you're talking about only justifies their wholesale price, not the retail cost. So at $.25 a miniature's material cost jumps to $.50... that results in the mark up to $2.00... which is $2.00 of a "$10" mini... include other materials and lets add a dollar and a half for copper (also in the alloy), packaging, shipping boxes, ... now its $3.50 of a $10 mini... well the vast majority of the time GW doesn't sell a $3.50 miniature for $10, it sells a $3.50 miniature for $4.5 to a wholesaler who in turn sells it for $5-$6.5 to retailers. This difference is why GW stores can justify their existence they bring in $10 on a $3.5 mini.

nectarprime wrote:

puma713 wrote:*snip*

You mad son?

Nah, brah. You new here?

I thought I'd wait until I got my hands on some of theses here Finecast figures before I commented, and now I've finally bought a couple (Yarrick and the jump pack Chaplain)

Well, they are very nice, with hardly any faults that I've spotted so far, but are they really worth £10.50 each?!

No, they most certainly are not. Now I'm not expecting prices to be the same as when I played D&D and Citadel figures were 3 for £1, but bloody hell! Especially when the only option you'll soon have, if you want to stick to GW, are the substandard plastic figures of a quality I would have expected 10-15 years ago.

The marketing has been truly awful - a massive hike in prices, a hugely expensive new line of minaitures and the removal of all metal figures from the store so punters can't say "stuff that, I'll buy the cheaper metal one!"

Thank God I just paint figures and not play armies - it's just too damn expensive!

The new Finecast models are mostly very nice. There are bugs to work out of the new system, hopefully GW will work on that. Most of it seems to be in quality control.

All minis have some flaws and things to clean up on them. And miscasts will always occur, the issue there is to NOT let them go out of the factory. The QA process of checking them before packaging clearly needs to be improved so that miscasts don't make it to the store in any quantity. That said, most of the models look great in the new material.

Someone just posted pictures of another miniature line here on the forum. The photo of one resin mini clearly shows lots of little unwanted bits of residue along the fine lines of the model.

I am a member of the forum Boardgamegeek where the discussion is mostly about board games (duh!)

A user there posted about the Finecast

I have played quite a bit of GW stuff over the last 30 years or so. Covering Warhammer, 40k, Warmaster, WHFRP, Space Hulk, etc etc etc. I remember when their stores carried all sorts of games, and I have a lot of respect for many of the things they have done. These days I have no time and so have migrated to board and wargames. BUT my nine year old son is looking at my old minis and saying. 'Cool, Dad. When can I start?'.

I popped into a GW store at the weekend and I saw a pack of five (F-I-V-E) cavalry figures in a box for sixty (S-I-X-T-Y) pounds sterling.

I thought it was a misprint.

I looked along the shelf and there was a new gimmick in store. Citadel Finecast. Resin minis at £20+ per box of ONE GUY. I struggle to think of a bigger rip off. The tragedy is that I actually like GW but this is just too much. A gamer with a soul needs to sort out their board of directors.

Goodbye GW. Hello Mantic

Very sad.

Much argument ensued about whether GW are justified or not in pricing their models so high.

However that is irrelevant to people who have been priced out.

The positive press is in. Nothing too interesting or hyperbolic, though.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800017a

Raptor wrote:The positive press is in. Nothing too interesting or hyperbolic, though.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800017a

...and the peasants rejoiced


lol i dont even have any in my area yet, all i got is LGS's and none of the 5 in my area that carry GW have any yet...i would like to actually take a look in person.

Radical_Edward wrote:

Neith wrote:

ajefferism wrote: I dont see the portion thats missing. Are you talking about the middle of the blade on the cutting side? If so, the "flesh" cloth robe behind the blade sorta looks like its part of the blade but it isn't... just the same lightness as the blade so it looks like its part of it... i think its a photography issue that the two blend together....



Unless your talking about another portion of the blade...

It could just be me not seeing it; for my Archon the Huskblade looks more like the shape of a DE Power Sword; after the tip of the blade, it cuts inward, rather than being a smooth blade edge. It actually looks pretty cool, but it's a miscast on mine after comparing it to my metal Archon. It looked like the same had happened to yours, but maybe it's just that I can't make it out on the photo well.

Edit: Terrible phone camera pic (no macro function!) but this is what I mean.

Hard to make out, but the blade on mine has a block cut out of it.

I actually have a metal archon in blister sitting here and it has the same 'hook' style blade. I don't think it's a miscast.

Yep. That's the shape of the blade. This is my metal Archon, in progress.

It might just be me, but these pictures GW always posts of their shops, make me want to stay as far away, from a GW brick & morter store, as humanly possible.

Some Guy on BGG wrote:I popped into a GW store at the weekend and I saw a pack of five (F-I-V-E) cavalry figures in a box for sixty (S-I-X-T-Y) pounds sterling.

I thought it was a misprint.

I can't talk with all the money I've sent GW's way, but I, too, threw up in my mouth a little bit when I saw those vampire knights for $99 USD.

My personal favorite is Abaddon. I've purchased him probably five times. I remember the day he was released for $8.50, the same price as pretty much all HQ single figs back in the day. That same model has increased by a few dollars and/or cents every couple of years until this last week, when I told a buddy of mine "I guarantee after Saturday he'll be $25!" GW made a liar out of me; he only went to $22.25.

But that (now surprisingly diminutive) figure was always good for conversions. Maybe I'll make an all-Abaddon chaos term squad for old-time's sake. Now available for the low, low price of $111.25. Plus tax.

I will admit that the packaging (with the card showing a fully painted model on the front) feels a lot more professional and cool than before.

Raptor wrote:The positive press is in. Nothing too interesting or hyperbolic, though.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800017a

See? Australians are happy about our prices! -GW

so in the end, Finecast is a ripoff.... great :(

Raptor wrote:I can't talk with all the money I've sent GW's way, but I, too, threw up in my mouth a little bit when I saw those vampire knights for $99 USD.

Ya, I'm feeling pretty relieved that I never wanted to get into Vampire Counts.

I reckon nowadays you are looking at £350 for a 1,500 point army with a couple of options.

Codex, 1 HQ, 6 Elites, 30 Troops, 2 Transports, 6 Fast Attack, 2 Heavies.

Obviously there will be some variation depending on the army and exact choices.

so in the end, Finecast is a ripoff.... great :(

No more or no less than GW multi-part plastic sets. Some went up in price a lot more than others, some seem more worth the asking price than others. Regardless of the switch from pewter to resin, GW was going to have their annual price hike at the end of May because it's the end of their fiscal year and as always, some price increases seem more egregious than others. Bloodknights were hardly a bargain when they were $75 US and then $90 and I don't see Finecast as the reason they are now $99, it's pretty well guaranteed that increase or worse would also have occurred if GW had stayed with pewter. There seems to be some confusion about price increases and Finecast as if GW would not have had their annual price increase at the end of May anyway. Now who is up for paying $58 US for 20 plastic Catachans that were first released in 1999?

Ixquic wrote:I will admit that the packaging (with the card showing a fully painted model on the front) feels a lot more professional and cool than before.

i can actually say that the new packaging seems nice to me to, you can tell at a glance what you are looking at. Seems like it would be nice for scanning through whats on the wall without having to read the tiny text.

aka_mythos wrote:
Once again if you look at GW prices and their financial records from their investors page you can see they markup their products 400% over cost of manufacturing to maintain a 9.5% profit. That means $1 worth of tin in the white metal has to sell for $4... well tin went up by 60%. So $1 of tin now had to sell for $6.4.... but rather than bump their model from $4 to $6.40, they went for an option that was $5 and provided a modest improvement in casting quality.

This price increase would have happened no matter what. It is the end result of the financial concept of alternative cost... where by GW saw the cost of doing nothing was too high. It was either do nothing and see a 23~24% increase to keep using metal because of the price of tin or see a 15~19% increase by shifting to a resin-plastic mixture, with some quality improvements

You posted this exact same argument in another thread and a couple of the accountant/analyst guys that post on here shot it down (you then reposted it, completely unchanged, in it's entirety, in this thread - I'll repeat - you reposted the exact same argument, without changes, in a new therad, after it was shown to be demonstrably invalid in the first place) the gist of it was that GW's materials costs aren't all of it's costs so an increase in materials doesn't represent a 100% equivalent increase in COGS and the profit figure you mentioned is after they shell out piles of cash to shore up their failing retail outlets which don't suddenly cost 60% more to run just because metal cost 60% more this quarter.

The person that initially completely refuted your line of argument went into it in a bit more detail, I'm just reposting the summary from what I can recall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:

so in the end, Finecast is a ripoff.... great :(

No more or no less than GW multi-part plastic sets. Some went up in price a lot more than others, some seem more worth the asking price than others. Regardless of the switch from pewter to resin, GW was going to have their annual price hike at the end of May because it's the end of their fiscal year and as always, some price increases seem more egregious than others. Bloodknights were hardly a bargain when they were $75 US and then $90 and I don't see Finecast as the reason they are now $99, it's pretty well guaranteed that increase or worse would also have occurred if GW had stayed with pewter. There seems to be some confusion about price increases and Finecast as if GW would not have had their annual price increase at the end of May anyway. Now who is up for paying $58 US for 20 plastic Catachans that were first released in 1999?

Your response to "This stuff costs too much" seems to be "Well they could have made it cost more! Are you happy now?!" with a dash of "They were going to make it cost more anyway so HA!" thrown in. It doesn't really even address the "This stuff costs too much" argument, much less invalidate it as you seem to be thinking it should.

Your response to "This stuff costs too much" seems to be "Well they could have made it cost more! Are you happy now?!" with a dash of "They were going to make it cost more anyway so HA!" thrown in. It doesn't really even address the "This stuff costs too much" argument, much less invalidate it as you seem to be thinking it should.

You're inferring an awful lot that just is not there.

My point, which I thought I made abundantly clear in plain English, was that saying Finecast is a rip-off specifically was fallacious. GW prices are high and they just went up again. It would have happened whether or not the blister pack models were still pewter or not. In other words, the issue of price is there regardless of Finecast, not because of it. I didn't say discussing whether or not prices are too high was not a legitimate topic, nor was I specifically defending or criticizing the prices though I added some comments of my own about pricing getting rather high (e.g., Catachans). People who were paying attention may have noticed that. There does seem to be some misguided attempts by some, however, to blame all the price issues on Finecast and I don't believe that's a valid idea, nor do I believe Finecast is any more or less a rip-off depending on one's perspective on the matter than the rest of the GW product line.

If there was less getting exercise jumping to conclusions on forums then every post with a slightly complex idea wouldn't require multiple explanations and these threads would be a lot less cluttered.

The introduction of Finecast was a good cover for a big price increase, however there probably would have been one anyway.

GW's pricing policy for some years has been to increase prices faster than inflation and costs in order to maintain revenue against falling unit sales.

Kilkrazy wrote:The introduction of Finecast was a good cover for a big price increase, however there probably would have been one anyway. GW's pricing policy for some years has been to increase prices faster than inflation and costs in order to maintain revenue against falling unit sales.

Nicely succinct.

Rolling out a new product line at the beginning of a fiscal year and coincident with the annual price increase makes sense. Interestingly, the total number of items in the product line that went up in price this year is less than last year if I recall correctly. However, the amount that some items went up this year, I can think of some that went up 25% in this one jump, is startling. It's not putting me out of the hobby, but there are more items each year now that I simply will not buy or will not buy as many of or that I would only buy when a bargain presents itself. Some items definitely seem more worth their pricing than others as the upper limits on certain items reach new heights.

Raptor wrote:The positive press is in. Nothing too interesting or hyperbolic, though.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800017a

I like to think that the Aussie pic is of them storming the GW to claim the head of the manager in protest for the Embargo policy, and GW just added the caption of "look how much they want Finecast."