2012 Release Schedule according to DrBored

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.

**xttz**

Reality-Torrent wrote:I see what your saying Electro but nothing you said explained the low growth compared to GW high prices. Their prices are higher then the competition though I am quite certain the competition haul in a greater growth. Though on the other hand the high prices might be the death-trap GW has snared for themselves. High prices = less customers.

Few customers paying allot per mini < Allot of customers paying less per mini

The current GW business strategy is clearly to market themselves as the 'premium brand' in wargaming, with prices reflecting that. Short-term it's certainly a viable plan and will make them money. Time will tell however if the growth they're giving to competitor products will hurt them long-term.

**Reality-Torrent**

I hardly think that GW commands 90% of the market, I would guess that today it's much less then that. xttz my guess is that that is the case. However this has strayed from the main topic, I'm sorry.

**Ian Sturrock**

helium42 wrote:
How many multi-part models did you design, sculpt, cast, and then set for mass production in those three months? Each codex release is accompanied by new models. Therefore codex releases don't come as quickly as releases for RPGs.

GW does have more than one staff member.

A company GW's size could very easily put out a revised (slightly revised) version of each codex, each year, if they cared about game balance. But their first priority is miniatures sales (understandably enough), and they apparently feel that the best way to maximise profit there is to release 2-3 codices a year with an accompanying big release of minis. As a gamer, I find that frustrating, because I want balanced, flexible codices -- balanced against each other, balanced for the missions in whatever edition is current, and flexible enough that there are multiple viable competitive armies. (Ideally I want all unit choices to be competitively viable, as in Infinity; sadly GW don't much care about that because they believe most of their customers don't even play their games, so tactically worthless minis still make plenty of sales).

**Brother Weasel**

Ian Sturrock wrote:

A company GW's size could very easily put out a revised (slightly revised) version of each codex, each year, if they cared about game balance..

2 points on that, even if i didn't buy all the codex, and just bought the ones for my armies, that would be 4 a year... but i do buy all the codex (lots of reasons) and don't really want to spend that cash on codex year in and year out...

would i like them to update them a bit faster, sure, i'd like all of them to get updates each edition, but... they don't and i doesn't stop me from playing

**Ian Sturrock**

Oh, for sure, but a decent errata sheet showing those slight revisions would be fine for anyone wanting to be up to date. Living rulebook approach. It's better if you want a competitive game -- you have to be able to adapt to imbalances that emerge.

**Brother Weasel**

Ian Sturrock wrote:Oh, for sure, but a decent errata sheet showing those slight revisions would be fine for anyone wanting to be up to date. Living rulebook approach. It's better if you want a competitive game -- you have to be able to adapt to imbalances that emerge.

the only problem with that, people want balance if htey see the slightest edge one way... there are only a few really powerfull units and combo in the game that are really hard to deal with, but people would just start wanting a statline or power change to anythign that wasn't statisticaly an even fight

mind you, i'm on the side of just playing hte game and having fun, not seeking out the uber power and winning at all costs... so for me, GW does it fine

**Platuan4th**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
A company GW's size could very easily put out a revised (slightly revised) version of each codex, each year, if they cared about game balance.

If they really cared about game balance, they'd only release them once. If they were balanced, they wouldn't need yearly revisions.

**Ian Sturrock**

You always need to tweak stuff slightly, in a genuinely competitive game -- even just in the form of errata. There's no amount of in-house testing, or even dedicated playtest teams, that will spot the kind of exploits that tens of thousands of members of the public, playing competitively and exchanging tips on the net, will figure out.

**Platuan4th**

Ian Sturrock wrote:You always need to tweak stuff slightly, in a genuinely competitive game -- even just in the form of errata. There's no amount of in-house testing, or even dedicated playtest teams, that will spot the kind of exploits that tens of thousands of members of the public, playing competitively and exchanging tips on the net, will figure out.

Errata is fine and NOT what I'm talking about. A good company will constantly be making minor tweaks to fix holes(see: Privateer Press).

Yearly releases for revisions implies yearly updating and changes, something much more substantial than just minor errata tweaks.

**Reality-Torrent**

Let's all hope and pray that it will be Eldar vs Chaos

**Ian Sturrock**

Platuan4th wrote:Errata is fine and NOT what I'm talking about. A good company will constantly be making minor tweaks to fix holes(see: Privateer Press).

Yearly releases for revisions implies yearly updating and changes, something much more substantial than just minor errata tweaks.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply major revisions -- just, you know, collate that year's errata and update the book. It's not that big a deal, and with POD almost as cheap as standard print runs these days (especially given the zero warehousing costs), it shouldn't be a problem. Get into the habit of that, do more major errata/revisions if a new edition comes out, and you're all good.

**Absolutionis**

Ian Sturrock wrote:a genuinely competitive game

If you want a 'genuinely competitive game', you're in the wrong hobby.

Warhammer falls alongside historial wargames and RPGs in terms of being a casual non-competitive game.
Trying to make something competitive is what killed D&D 4thEd.

A balanced game isn't the same as a competitive game.

**Ian Sturrock**

Any balanced game can be competitive, I think. I'd settle for "balanced" though. I want to be able to field Pyrovores and not have that be an I Lose button.

**carabine**

Ian Sturrock wrote:Any balanced game can be competitive, I think. I'd settle for "balanced" though. I want to be able to field Pyrovores and not have that be an I Lose button.

QFT

I'd like to field a space marine captain and not just have him be a waste of points compared to.... well every other SM HQ option.

Or maybe I'd like to play against tau and not laugh when I see them putting kroot on the table.

**LoneLictor**

I don't trust Dr. Bored. First of all, he's not even a real doctor! And don't let me get started on his avatar. Who does he think he is?

But seriously, his predictions sadden me because I was looking forward to CSM and now I might not get them. I am crying manly tears right now.

**Platuan4th**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:Errata is fine and NOT what I'm talking about. A good company will constantly be making minor tweaks to fix holes(see: Privateer Press).

Yearly releases for revisions implies yearly updating and changes, something much more substantial than just minor errata tweaks.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply major revisions -- just, you know, collate that year's errata and update the book. It's not that big a deal, and with POD almost as cheap as standard print runs these days (especially given the zero warehousing costs), it shouldn't be a problem. Get into the habit of that, do more major errata/revisions if a new edition comes out, and you're all good.

Sorry, looks like misunderstanding due to different interpretations of terms.

The sad thing is, I think GW could do it, too. It just seems more and more they're unwilling.

**Brother SRM**

LoneLictor wrote:I don't trust Dr. Bored. First of all, he's not even a real doctor! And don't let me get started on his avatar. Who does he think he is?

But seriously, his predictions sadden me because I was looking forward to CSM and now I might not get them. I am crying manly tears right now.

Considering everyone with credibility has shot him down, I'd ignore him.

**LoneLictor**

Brother SRM wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:I don't trust Dr. Bored. First of all, he's not even a real doctor! And don't let me get started on his avatar. Who does he think he is?

But seriously, his predictions sadden me because I was looking forward to CSM and now I might not get them. I am crying manly tears right now.

Considering everyone with credibility has shot him down, I'd ignore him.

That's good to know. I've stopped crying now.

**Electro**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:Errata is fine and NOT what I'm talking about. A good company will constantly be making minor tweaks to fix holes(see: Privateer Press).

Yearly releases for revisions implies yearly updating and changes, something much more substantial than just minor errata tweaks.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply major revisions -- just, you know, collate that year's errata and update the book. It's not that big a deal, and with POD almost as cheap as standard print runs these days (especially given the zero warehousing costs), it shouldn't be a problem. Get into the habit of that, do more major errata/revisions if a new edition comes out, and you're all good.

Its realy not. The margin on PoD is about 10%, with a traditional print run its about 50%-60% (or more). PoD is only used where you have a garenteed sale otherwise the risk is too high. There is a reason publishers only do firm sale on PoD titles. Ther is also a lead time of 7-8 weeks. If it was as easy as you say lots more publishers would use it.

I also think people are totaly underestimating the work that gose in to publishing a book.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reality-Torrent wrote:I hardly think that GW commands 90% of the market, I would guess that today it's much less then that. xttz my guess is that that is the case. However this has strayed from the main topic, I'm sorry.

I don't think so. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218542.page
"PriceWaterhouseCooper market-analysis had ascribed Games Workshop 94% of market share in the wargaming hobby market." I don't have figures for 2009 or 2010 but i doubt there has been a huge swing since then.

Anyway, back to topick, i say drbored is a troll, his name is a "joke" and we will all see this on wednesday. Althugh it has now been claimd that somone has seen the front of this months WD on a warehouse tour, with a necron on the front...

**Raikoh**

I'm just going to put this right here....

Dark Red has been updated:

Chaos Daemons----------May 2008
Orks--------------------January 2008
Chaos Space Marines----September 2007
Dark Angels-------------March 2007
Eldar-------------------November 2006
Tau Empire--------------March 2006
Black Templars----------November 2005
Witch Hunters-----------April 2004
Daemonhunters----------March 2003
Necrons-----------------July 2002
Dark Eldar--------------November 1998
Blood Angels------------December 1998

These are the release dates of some the older Codex's. As we all know, they do skip armies sometimes, as they did GK and SoB before Necrons, but everything is roughly in order considering the Xenos-Imperium stuff.

Where we sit now is actually really odd. We can pretty confidently put Black Templars aside, considering their semi-recent errata. Which would really put Tau next; but then that would effect the xenos-Imperium pattern. So in that case, we can expect Dark angels to take Black Templars slot. Then 6th Ed with squeeze itself in there somewhere around Tau and Chaos, with chaos to seperate Tau and Eldar (Power armour counts as spess mahreens rite gais?!).

So with that it mind it may look like this (descending from now):
Dark Angels
(6th?)
Tau
(6th?)
CSM
Eldar

Putting Tau before 6th also satisfies everyone who wants to believe Harry's prediction of CSM after 6th.

What do you guys think? (I would like to just like to point out that I have accurately predicted the release order so far since before Sisters release =P )

**Dysartes**

Electro wrote:I don't think so. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218542.page
"PriceWaterhouseCooper market-analysis had ascribed Games Workshop 94% of market share in the wargaming hobby market." I don't have figures for 2009 or 2010 but i doubt there has been a huge swing since then.

Without seeing the report in question, I wouldn't've believed that figure in 2008, and I certainly wouldn't believe it now, especially when that post goes on to say:

precinctomega wrote:Now, I’ve not seen the report (I’d love to), but Ernie assured me that this market share incorporated not only traditional miniature games, but the new collectible miniature games, HeroClix, CCGs, historical games and RPGs.

Given the size and scale of Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh even back in 2008, without even touching on the RPG sector (as 2008 would've been during the D&D 3.5 boom, for a start) or historicals, I can safely say someone was talking bullocks there.

**Ian Sturrock**

The POD vs standard printing thing really depends on your sales volumes. I don't know what GW's are like, per codex -- they are probably higher than typical RPG industry sales (which is what I'm used to). But basically if they're really selling super-high-volume (tens of thousands of units of each codex each year), it wouldn't be that costly to do a new traditional print run each year. If they're not, POD starts to become more viable. Either way, it's perfectly possible to update every army every year or two, if they wanted to -- if they cared about making a balanced game rather than just shifting as many units of toy soldiers as possible. A focus on the "Games" and the "Workshop" part of the name rather than the "PLC" part of the name.

**Electro**

Dysartes wrote:
Electro wrote:I don't think so. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218542.page
"PriceWaterhouseCooper market-analysis had ascribed Games Workshop 94% of market share in the wargaming hobby market." I don't have figures for 2009 or 2010 but i doubt there has been a huge swing since then.

Without seeing the report in question, I wouldn't've believed that figure in 2008, and I certainly wouldn't believe it now, especially when that post goes on to say:

precinctomega wrote:Now, I’ve not seen the report (I’d love to), but Ernie assured me that this market share incorporated not only traditional miniature games, but the new collectible miniature games, HeroClix, CCGs, historical games and RPGs.

Given the size and scale of Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh even back in 2008, without even touching on the RPG sector (as 2008 would've been during the D&D 3.5 boom, for a start) or historicals, I can safely say someone was talking bullocks there.

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/kowdesigns/books/report.pdf

Wotc 2004 finacial report... They are not as big as you seem to think they are. $25 million sales.. About £15 million. GWs revanue in the first HALF of 2010 was £60 million. Diffrent years, but i can't find like for like. If your going to "safely say" things check your facts. Compaird to GW WotC are tiny.

**Dysartes**

Electro wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/indie/kowdesigns/books/report.pdf

Wotc 2004 finacial report... They are not as big as you seem to think they are. $25 million sales.. About £15 million. GWs revanue in the first HALF of 2010 was £60 million. Diffrent years, but i can't find like for like. If your going to "safely say" things check your facts. Compaird to GW WotC are tiny.

That's nice for you - let's run those numbers, shall we?

Assuming the 2004 figures have remained static (unlikely, even just with price inflation), and that GW managed to get 2010 H2 to match 2010 H1, that gives us a total of £135million just between those two companies.

15/135 = 11.11%

So, going by that, we can assume a maximum market share across "not only traditional miniature games, but the new collectible miniature games, HeroClix, CCGs, historical games and RPGs." of 88.89% - already substantially lower than 94% - and that is before you take into account Battlefront, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Warlord, any-number-of-other-historical-manufacturers, Mongoose Publishing, any-number-of-other-RPG-publishers, WizKids/NECA, AEG, Konami, etc.

Care to try again?

**Nemesor**

i love the idea of chaos vs DA cuz iv allwazs wanted to collect DA and i allreadz collect chaos. fluff wise it could be interesting cuz if lion el johnson wakes up seeing as he was probably chaos and alpha legion might be still loyalists then we have a very interesting battle. wouldn´t chaos dark angels VS the fallen and alpha legion for the empire be a funny turn of the tables. while very unlikely there would be a very interesting reversal fluff wise. alphairus and/or omegon vs lion el johnson.
Food for thought how ever unlikely.

**Milisim**

How about Chaos vs Eldar! Even better!

And if you want a balanced gaming TT game you woud look more into WHFB.

Im not saying its 100% perfect, im just saying out of all the armies NONE are dominating the scene like the GK etc....

**Nemesor**

carabine wrote:

Or maybe I'd like to play against tau and not laugh when I see them putting kroot on the table.

QFT

or not have I2 assult units. WARDHATER WTF

Automatically Appended Next Post:
lychguard terminator price 5 more points for good survivability no weapon mixing ie the save and the scythe. id pay another 10 points a model for that. forget paladin deathstar. and they only have iniative 2. sword and bored lychguard need to be the toughest unit in the game to be able to even contend hammernators. and i need to spend 128 nz dollars to even get a good size unit to take advantage or rp and then like 40 more dollars to get a res orb. their stat line would agree with their points if it was basically the same but iniative 4 and armour save 2 + so i could run them with war scythes. and it doesn't even make sense that war scythes are two handed because according to the MATT WARD THE EEJET written dex the guard have the same bodies as the lords and the lords can have a scythe and a res orb. thez are even shown in pictures holding the sczthe in 1 hand. the blimmen front of the codex has a squad of mixed weapons wit scythes held in one hand. the models mainlz hole the scythes in one hand so why are they 2 handed?

thats all for my matt ward related rant for todaz kids. see zou tommorow when ill be covering the injustices and biasedness of matt ward

nemesor awayyyyyyyyyyyyy

**Electro**

Dysartes wrote:
Electro wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/indie/kowdesigns/books/report.pdf

Wotc 2004 finacial report... They are not as big as you seem to think they are. $25 million sales.. About £15 million. GWs revanue in the first HALF of 2010 was £60 million. Diffrent years, but i can't find like for like. If your going to "safely say" things check your facts. Compaird to GW WotC are tiny.

That's nice for you - let's run those numbers, shall we?

Assuming the 2004 figures have remained static (unlikely, even just with price inflation), and that GW managed to get 2010 H2 to match 2010 H1, that gives us a total of £135million just between those two companies.

15/135 = 11.11%

So, going by that, we can assume a maximum market share across "not only traditional miniature games, but the new collectible miniature games, HeroClix, CCGs, historical games and RPGs." of 88.89% - already substantially lower than 94% - and that is before you take into account Battlefront, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Warlord, any-number-of-other-historical-manufacturers, Mongoose Publishing, any-number-of-other-RPG-publishers, WizKids/NECA, AEG, Konami, etc.

Care to try again?

Face it, your wrong. I said 80-90% of he market and everything i have shown has proven that. I have proven that WotC (who compaird to most rpg companys are huge) are not the big deal you think. You have done some pointless maths that shows nothing more than that you don't know anything about finance and accountancy. Market share is not as simple as you seem to think. E.g Some of WotCs income may not come from RPG's, so not part of the market share. Now, unless you can come back to me with some solid data from an independant sorce lets stop dragging this thread off topic.

For the record i have worked in finance for the past 10 years, am a qualified credit manager and my wife is a part qual accountant (ACCA) who worked for Deloit for 3 years in audit.

**ZebioLizard2**

For the record i have worked in finance for the past 10 years, am a qualified credit manager and my wife is a part qual accountant (ACCA) who worked for Deloit for 3 years in audit.

This adds nothing to the conversation except for counting the principle of "I HAVE X DEGREE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

Also why would he need to know accountancy, he's not communicating it to the shareholders or managers.

**Electro**

Perhaps it dose add nothing, but i was just trying to show that i do understand the subject at hand and that when i say "pointless maths" i know what i'm talking about.