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.

 cincydooley wrote:
I was just saying that If you're going to do low volume kits in plastic, it makes more sense to do larger, more expensive ones that have higher margins than the smaller clamshells.

Right.. and even better if you can squeeze the design onto as small a number of sprues as possible, so as to reduce production costs, the final design of the model being a secondary consideration (*coughStormRavencough*)

I like the storm raven cough.

 cincydooley wrote:
I like the storm raven cough.

Its not their best kit, It looks a bit... unflyable. Its certainly not that bad though, I mean, sure its a bit like half a landraider with wings, but landraiders look awesome, and we don't need to have realism do we? If you suspend a little disbelief, it's a perfectly likeable model.

Id give it 6/10.

I think it could have a little streamlining (most notably the turret) but I like it overall.

The Storm talon looks suffers the same prob. I really don't like the missile launchers up front.

I kind of like these fun-style deformed drawings, but this is what we would have had as the Veyron if Bugatti company had followed GW's production constraints for the Storm Raven

Looks like that would appeal pretty well to the crowd that likes fiats or VW bugs.

...That's actually quite an appealing design

I think I understand the point the OP is trying to make.
The Wraithknight kit is "not risky" because it is new, therefore, in GW's mind, every Eldar player will buy it. Equally, the new Wraithguard is also not risky, because the new assault option also means every Eldar player will buy it. But GW does not do a new Avatar because, without some other new options to the kit, possibly nobody will buy it because they already have the GW or FW versions, thus a new Avatar would be risky.

My gaming group has had much the same discussion regarding the trend we've seen in 6th edition. New flyers, new big kits, and otherwise all new models rather than redesigns. Why? Because GW banks on them being guaranteed sales as they are new models nobody already has. There's no risk in producing something you know will sell (or, at least, delude yourself into believing will sell at ridiculously high prices like GW does).

Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think I understand the point the OP is trying to make.
The Wraithknight kit is "not risky" because it is new, therefore, in GW's mind, every Eldar player will buy it. Equally, the new Wraithguard is also not risky, because the new assault option also means every Eldar player will buy it. But GW does not do a new Avatar because, without some other new options to the kit, possibly nobody will buy it because they already have the GW or FW versions, thus a new Avatar would be risky.

My gaming group has had much the same discussion regarding the trend we've seen in 6th edition. New flyers, new big kits, and otherwise all new models rather than redesigns. Why? Because GW banks on them being guaranteed sales as they are new models nobody already has. There's no risk in producing something you know will sell (or, at least, delude yourself into believing will sell at ridiculously high prices like GW does).

Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

This is the best description I have seen of the situation.

However I think it can have some consequences which are not thought about. The High Elf "Shadow Warrior/Maidens of Avelorn" kit is a great example of this. The Shadow Warriors suffer from having no actual "bow firing" poses and instead are bow/sword wielding at all times. This was done to differentiate them from the Maidens of Avelorn who are set up purely as archers.

If I were in charge of GW I would release a completely new codex for a new xenos race or a xenos race from the background that everyone likes, its a risk but it might work.

 Sword Of Caliban wrote:
If I were in charge of GW I would release a completely new codex for a new xenos race or a xenos race from the background that everyone likes, its a risk but it might work.

Haha. Like what? I wait with baited breath.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think I understand the point the OP is trying to make.
The Wraithknight kit is "not risky" because it is new, therefore, in GW's mind, every Eldar player will buy it. Equally, the new Wraithguard is also not risky, because the new assault option also means every Eldar player will buy it. But GW does not do a new Avatar because, without some other new options to the kit, possibly nobody will buy it because they already have the GW or FW versions, thus a new Avatar would be risky.

My gaming group has had much the same discussion regarding the trend we've seen in 6th edition. New flyers, new big kits, and otherwise all new models rather than redesigns. Why? Because GW banks on them being guaranteed sales as they are new models nobody already has. There's no risk in producing something you know will sell (or, at least, delude yourself into believing will sell at ridiculously high prices like GW does).

Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner, tell them what they've won Margy!

Exactly the point my disrupted, sleep deprived brain was trying to make

I think GW probably is taking the right number of risk on balance

especially as folk keep moaning (justifiably quite possibly) about prices, and how are they supposed to afford X....

Now IF they really wanted to go High Risk, how about moving on the time line significantly

the golden throne finally fails, the emperor dies, humanity starts to fail

An (eventually) futile rearguard action is fought by the imperium, formerly insignificant alien species start to come out of the woodwork

Use this to have a serious look at what they have in 40K
kill some of the least profitable lines (this tech no longer exists) or even races

(yes I know this would not be popular, but they are at the point where they can't fit new factions in because there is so much old)

it would give more flexibility than they've had for years, but is is REALLY high risk
(i'm not saying this would be my personal preference, but if you're talking about risk it's something that needs to be considered)

I believe GW takes very little risk. I think they have a hidden account on all the forums or just lurk on things like Dakka. People have cried out for years about the lack of Combis in the Sternguard box, and now we have one that has many, albeit not 5 of each as wanted but they prioritise casual play over min/maxing the most potent build.

Then we have stuff like Tau and Eldar, going from armies with very limited builds to some very powerful armies.

People have complained non-stop about Ultramarines in 5th Ed codex and now there is apparently some balance on that end. Not only that, Chapter Tactics has returned even though people who want to play their chapter needed a Special Character (and thus a sale) where now they don't, thus costing a bit of money.

They are releasing supplements for codexes that allow play of niche sub-armies like Iyanden and Farsight (for those who want to pay up) which has been asked for many times. People wanting to be able to fluffily play their niche subfaction.

Fw HH models. Begged for these. Now they are here.


I could go on but basically I think GW has very little risk because they secretly reads the internet.

I think GW play it clever.

No matter how good a kit is, if it's an updated kit, there will be some people who won't buy it because, for whatever reason, they don't want to update their models. With new kits, that's not a problem, since nobody owns a prior version (because there is none) so profits are up.

GW absolutely plays it safe - it sort of has no choice but to. It has shareholders to satisfy as a publicly traded company. If staying the course has more or less kept those shareholders satisfied, why would they deviate from a model that is working more or less for a long time ?

Private companies like Privateer Press i think are more nimble in that they can take risks (like MonPoc and the abortive Voltron thing - i didn't say they were good ideas, just that they are more nimble and can take risks more easily!). Risk isn't always good. Pushing the envelope is, but risk, not necessarily.

That said.... i'd love to see some new innovation out of GW... really hoping for it with Fantasy 9th ed. I want to see some unconventional, new things from that game and company.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

So, why did they resculpt Tau Broadsides, Farsight, Pathfinders, Necron Immortals and Flayed Ones, entire Dark Eldar range, etc? Because I really don't think there is kind of trend going on as you describe. Sure there are always some kits which are obsolete and people would wish them to be resculpted, but threshold to resculpt perfectly functional, if slightly obsolete, plastic kit (like say, Crisis Suits) must be pretty high, so such a thing is not very often done. And I don't think GW is particularly alone with this, quite the contrary.

Backfire wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

So, why did they resculpt Tau Broadsides, Farsight, Pathfinders, Necron Immortals and Flayed Ones, entire Dark Eldar range, etc? Because I really don't think there is kind of trend going on as you describe. Sure there are always some kits which are obsolete and people would wish them to be resculpted, but threshold to resculpt perfectly functional, if slightly obsolete, plastic kit (like say, Crisis Suits) must be pretty high, so such a thing is not very often done. And I don't think GW is particularly alone with this, quite the contrary.

Unfortunately, most of your examples don't really work. Remember, GW is moving as much as they can to plastic, with no metals anymore and less use of Finecast. Broadsides required metal (and then in Finecast, I think) railguns. Similarly, Farsight required his sword. Immortals were originally metal, then converted into a dual plastic kit to make the new Deathmarks as well. Flayed Ones were also originally in metal. I believe Pathfinders were also originally metal as well.

I can't offer much of a counter on the Dark Eldar example, except to state that many of their models dated back to the start of 3rd Edition, I believe, and probably due for an extensive update in plastic. Much like what happened with the Necrons, as many of their old models were metal, and thus redone in plastic.

 Haight wrote:
GW absolutely plays it safe - it sort of has no choice but to. It has shareholders to satisfy as a publicly traded company. If staying the course has more or less kept those shareholders satisfied, why would they deviate from a model that is working more or less for a long time ?

Because it's less profitable in the long run. Playing it safe as your company declines (and yes, GW is declining) might ensure that your next financial report isn't too disappointing, but it doesn't give you much hope of turning things around and maximizing long-term profit for those shareholders. GW's plan right now is only good if you assume that the shareholders don't care about long-term profit because they plan to sell their GW shares and invest elsewhere as soon as things start to look too questionable, and don't investigate the company beyond the annual report so they don't notice the poor long-term forecast.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


Keep in mind, it's not really about what we, as normal people, think is a "risky" release or not. It's what GW's sales managers think is a risky release. To them, a new model is a guaranteed sale. A resculpt may not be guaranteed. Space Marines do tend to be the exception to the rule here, as there are always more Space Marines players coming in.

But that is a rather far-fetched assumption.

GW's sales managers are pretty well trained. And they know that releasing something completely new is always hit (Heldrake) or miss (Mutilators). So it is always a risk.

For existing kits (Wraithguard) there is always pre-existing sales-data to mine and extrapolate upon. So there is less risk.

Which is why GW with a high percentage of new kits (DreadKnight, Flyers, Wraithknight, Centurions) is less risk-averse than, for example, Forge World, who stray from the bed of expectations (and, unlike previous books like Vraks, etc.., seem content these days to just leech background from Black Library, having thrown just about all creative inclinations out the door).

If you're definition of "risk" rides on an obviously derogatory claim to what "GW sales managers" think or do not think, the entire concept is flawed.

Really. GW's sales-people may be hardhearted business-men, but they ain't stupid. And even if they are stupid, it's unlikely they'd be stupid in the way gibbering fan-boys assume (wish) they were.

IMO no, GW doesn't take enough risks. They're content to keep releasing mediocre new rules and models that their core customers will continue to buy, but they aren't doing anything different. And with declining sales volume and (presumably) market share that means they're content to keep the investors happy for a while longer without having much of a long-term plan for the company.

And it's not entirely about model design. Consider advertising for example. Is it a risk? Of course, obviously the hope is that the money you spend on advertising generates enough sales to be a net gain, but there's still the risk of failure. Is it unbelievably stupid that GW won't advertise? Yes. Or what about proper tournament support? There's a risk of wasted money, but a lot of potential gain from happier tournament players. But GW won't do it. Or even consider something as simple as professional playtesting. There's obvious potential gain in having clear and balanced rules that make the entire YMDC forum redundant, but GW seems to be afraid to risk paying anyone to do it when throwing out mediocre unprofessional rules is enough to keep the 12 year olds buying.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Which is why GW with a high percentage of new kits (DreadKnight, Flyers, Wraithknight, Centurions) is less risk-averse than, for example, Forge World, who stray from the bed of expectations (and, unlike previous books like Vraks, etc.., seem content these days to just leech background from Black Library, having thrown just about all creative inclinations out the door).

I don't think either of those is really risky. FW releasing Heresy marine after Heresy marine is clearly milking the cash cow (but at least putting out nice models while doing it), but GW's latest releases are still playing it pretty safe. The Centurions aren't a risky choice at all, they're very clearly a by-the-book marine "big model" just like most armies have been getting. And judging by how awful they look they probably didn't involve much of an investment in design time/work either. It's about as low-risk as you can get while still continuing to release new models like GW's customers (and investors) expect.

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

A risky release.
A model or kit which won't automatically command large numbers, and already has an existing option, that doesn't really need an update other than for aesthetic reasons.

A non risky release
Anything with nailed on sales numbers (so Space Marines,) is a new kit for that update, particularly if supported by strong rules, or has been transitioned into plastic (which, given GWs apparent desire to move everything to plastic, must have its own economic incentive for them)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Because the first is infinitely better than the second.

The over-blinged FW one is really a disgrace, really.

But that's just my taste, I assume.




Either way, this doesn't help clarify what you consider risky and what you consider not risky.

If breaking new ground is risky, neither of these models is risky, because power-armoured Chaplains are a well-established element of the 40K-verse. If re-doing miniatures for things that already exist is the true risk (power-armoured Chaplains do exist), than both of them qualify.

Differences in aesthetics may mean that one of them succeeds despite the risk, while the other one fails for having taken said risk. But it doesn't clarify what you consider risky and what not.

I'm not a massive fan of the Erebus sculpt, but I have such a hard time believing you prefer the plastic one, I think you are being contrary at this point.

I also like the plastic one personally. it has an old school vibe to it and is what i expect a chaplain to look like. his long purity seals are a little weird but if you imagin a peice of parchment blowing in the wind it could actually take on that shape im guessing.

The other one i dont like very much. the way he's half heartedly holding up that ackward looking weapon kind of reminds me of an old lady at a picket line. and much too busy as already pointed out.

When they were at their most creative and inventive, 80s and early 90s, they made the greatest profits and were able to expand. They've rested on their laurels for well over a decade and invest only in their three core games, which will become just two in time once LotR winds up.

They push new kits often by making them the strongest in new rule sets while nerfing the older. It's not a risk for them to make a new model if they do this, because they know a reasonable number of people will lap them up even when they don't like them. Because a lot of GW customers seem to need a stronger army more than they want good models, and they only buy GW.

Look at the people saying they think the Space Marine Centurions look dreadful but they'll buy them anyway, sometimes in the vague hope that they'll be possible to kitbash into something reasonable looking. When you have customers who still will buy rubbish because they'd rather have *your* product and put an inordinate amount of work into it, rather than simply buying from another manufacturer, you know you have them hooked and can get away with quite a lot.

Most people would be quick to criticise companies releasing tired, ugly, 20 year old models. But most companies doing this are smaller and their old figures are pretty cheap. GW does this and charges a premium. They still sell Abaddon and Mephiston; ugly undersized miniatures that are nearly 20 years old. There's no risk to re-releasing these, they're special characters. They don't re-release them because GW is lazy. Why resculpt something that currently sells for £12? Someone is still buying it. If more people were confident enough to buy from other manufacturers and mix it up a bit with their GW stuff then GW might have to think again. But the customers let GW be lazy, because they mostly don't buy from anywhere else. The most depressing thing is hearing kids insist stuff has to be GW to play in GW games. I don't know how GW manage this but it's damned clever. It means people buy poorly sculpted, poorly cast stuff (finecast) at premium prices. They don't need to take risks, or be proactive about reinventing their ranges, they can coast quite comfortably.

GW is like Microsoft: they are almost a monopoly and have been sitting at the top for so long, they don't need to have a sharp, innovative edge. They can just plug along making enough money doing what they have always been doing. Big innovation usually doesn't come from the companies at the top, it's the younger, smaller ones who are fighting hard for a piece of the pie.

 Deadshot wrote:
I believe GW takes very little risk. I think they have a hidden account on all the forums or just lurk on things like Dakka. People have cried out for years about the lack of Combis in the Sternguard box, and now we have one that has many, albeit not 5 of each as wanted but they prioritise casual play over min/maxing the most potent build.

Then we have stuff like Tau and Eldar, going from armies with very limited builds to some very powerful armies.

People have complained non-stop about Ultramarines in 5th Ed codex and now there is apparently some balance on that end. Not only that, Chapter Tactics has returned even though people who want to play their chapter needed a Special Character (and thus a sale) where now they don't, thus costing a bit of money.

They are releasing supplements for codexes that allow play of niche sub-armies like Iyanden and Farsight (for those who want to pay up) which has been asked for many times. People wanting to be able to fluffily play their niche subfaction.

Fw HH models. Begged for these. Now they are here.


I could go on but basically I think GW has very little risk because they secretly reads the internet.

I agree. Been saying for years that they are here lurking. It is a (cheap) way of collecting data from a section of their customer base for R&Dso they could apply it with their IP's.

It is certainly plausible, but it doesn't explain how they often seem to miss the point slightly

(As in, "we really want a cheap, small, portable rulebook to stuff in our carry case when we aren't gaming at home" translates into "here's an expensive, high quality, hardback book that isn't really any of those things!")

I think its a little unfair to compare FW to GW-proper minis. GW has to produce models on a rather rigorous schedule for all armies/games, while FW gets to take a more leisurely approach and cherry pick their models.

It also doesn't hurt that FW gets to make models based on firmly established heroes and villains from the Horus Heresy novels, while GW has to focus on more generic models. Also, a number of FW vehicle models equate to existing GW model upgrade kits (new turret or sponson, some armour plating).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Look at the people saying they think the Space Marine Centurions look dreadful but they'll buy them anyway, sometimes in the vague hope that they'll be possible to kitbash into something reasonable looking. When you have customers who still will buy rubbish because they'd rather have *your* product and put an inordinate amount of work into it, rather than simply buying from another manufacturer, you know you have them hooked and can get away with quite a lot.

I'd imagine such statements are a purely UK phenomenon. Simply due to many people's only place to play being the local GW...

 azreal13 wrote:
It is certainly plausible, but it doesn't explain how they often seem to miss the point slightly

(As in, "we really want a cheap, small, portable rulebook to stuff in our carry case when we aren't gaming at home" translates into "here's an expensive, high quality, hardback book that isn't really any of those things!")

That's where their legal team, IP infringement lawsuits and the word "cheap" come in.

First off, they don't want cheap. Cheap=less money per sale. And they know (no fear ) that they can make it hardback, highquality and expensive and people will still buy their product because its what they want to have- a small book they can throw in the case.

When it comes to models, anyone who gets too close gets Legal Teamed. A C&D letter then a lawsuit which 3rd Party can't afford (with exceptions). For people in the UK, where the local "Friendly" Local "Gaming" Store is a GW, proxies of any kind are not an option unless they play at home.