How can GW keep affording this?

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.

**Sir Arun**

azreal13 wrote:
Time to out myself.

I really like the Heldrake!

Not a fan of the fiends, but I would acquire an HQ and small troop CSM unit to justify including one as allies to my Daemons, just for the model (plus I think it fits better aesthetically if you've got daemons alongside it.) this is bleeding over from some of the other discussions going on here right now, but knowing how hard to deal with they are, I'd never field more than one, even though I'd like to from a painting and modelling POV.

I'm sure the baleflamer played no part in your liking of the model

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Sir Arun wrote:
Okay so I dont know if this has been discussed to death before, but what I don't understand is how GW can keep up this accelerated release schedule.

Are they really getting enough sales for all the new products they are releasing to still be making a profit? Lets be honest here. A couple years ago, GW was only putting out 25% of the stuff they are now on a monthly average. This means that their current production and distribution costs are 4 times as high as they used to be back in the day. Without 4 times as many purchases being made by people, they are only burning holes into their monetary assets.

So how can a company keep going strong when - honestly - it is offering more stuff right now than the wallet of an average consumer can afford? And I highly doubt that the worldwide GW fanbase has quadrupled since the arrival of 6th edition.

Is it just a matter of time till this company goes bankrupt (near future)?

Or have they been sitting on a mountain of profits for all these years and have now decided to give back something to the community?

The bulk of costs for GW at the moment, even though they don't itemise them specifically, has to be overhead; especially rent and other overheads for the retail network.

It makes sense to hire more staff and buy more machinery to increase the product range, which they did a year or so ago, according to a poster here who'd been to a designers' open day.

They're not putting out 4 times more product, however, and the increase in costs is probably marginal.

Personally, I can't see why people would complain about having more choice. Of bigger import is whether some models are rushed; personally, I don't think there's the same attention to detail in, say, the tyranid crone, vs the old carnifexes. There's more texture and little touches on the old Fexes, some of the new models do feel more of a cut and paste job.

**Azreal13**

Sir Arun wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Time to out myself.

I really like the Heldrake!

Not a fan of the fiends, but I would acquire an HQ and small troop CSM unit to justify including one as allies to my Daemons, just for the model (plus I think it fits better aesthetically if you've got daemons alongside it.) this is bleeding over from some of the other discussions going on here right now, but knowing how hard to deal with they are, I'd never field more than one, even though I'd like to from a painting and modelling POV.

I'm sure the baleflamer played no part in your liking of the model

Genuinely, no.

I come at the game as something to do with the models I paint, not as something to paint models for. My first priority is for ideas/concepts/models that I like and I find inspiring.

I use collecting armies as a way of focusing and directing myself, otherwise I'd be all over the shop with my miniature collection but never have anything to use in games (which I do like to play because I have friends I'd seldom see if I didn't go to my club)

I have a tight budget. So I also try and limit my purchases not only to models I like, but to those I can game with. The Heldrake fits those criteria (with a few extra models, and I already have some CSM NOS somewhere) This is almost reverse WAAC, in that if the Heldrake was slightly less effective in game, I'd probably buy 2, or even 3, but as it stands, because my club environment is reasonably moderate from a competitive viewpoint, it would, as mentioned, be a bit of a dick move for me to bring multiples.

**jasper76**

Is it considered disrespectful or unsportsmanlike to play Heldrake units? I am getting that vibe.

The shiznit I end up facing since Escalation, its almost like who cares, roll the dice.

**Wayniac**

jasper76 wrote:
Is it considered disrespectful or unsportsmanlike to play Heldrake units? I am getting that vibe.

Because the unit is too good for its points, and it makes it easy and "point and click" to spam them. It's not like that's new though, I played in 3rd edition and back then it was possible to take 3x Wraithlords in a 500 point army, where your opponent was very unlikely to be able to deal with one, let alone three (at the time Wraithlords being the only walker that had MC stats). Because of that it was generally considered poor form to do it and resulted in you being considered TFG, even if you were doing something like an Iyanden army which *would* have Wraithlords. The unit was just too good.

It's the same thing with the Heldrake now - it's not "disrespectful" to take three of them, but it's kind of like saying you don't care if your opponent has fun, because they aren't likely to have fun against you, so it's easy to drift into TFG territory because the message being sent is that you only care about your own fun.

**jasper76**

WayneTheGame wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Is it considered disrespectful or unsportsmanlike to play Heldrake units? I am getting that vibe.

Because the unit is too good for its points, and it makes it easy and "point and click" to spam them. It's not like that's new though, I played in 3rd edition and back then it was possible to take 3x Wraithlords in a 500 point army, where your opponent was very unlikely to be able to deal with one, let alone three (at the time Wraithlords being the only walker that had MC stats). Because of that it was generally considered poor form to do it and resulted in you being considered TFG, even if you were doing something like an Iyanden army which *would* have Wraithlords. The unit was just too good.

It's the same thing with the Heldrake now - it's not "disrespectful" to take three of them, but it's kind of like saying you don't care if your opponent has fun, because they aren't likely to have fun against you, so it's easy to drift into TFG territory because the message being sent is that you only care about your own fun.

In other words, I need 3 or 4 Heldrakes, eventually

Even if that's the case, I'd rather have 1 GW build and 2-3 conversions. Identical Daemon Engines does not make sense to me.

**Idolator**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sir Arun wrote:
Okay so I dont know if this has been discussed to death before, but what I don't understand is how GW can keep up this accelerated release schedule.

Are they really getting enough sales for all the new products they are releasing to still be making a profit? Lets be honest here. A couple years ago, GW was only putting out 25% of the stuff they are now on a monthly average. This means that their current production and distribution costs are 4 times as high as they used to be back in the day. Without 4 times as many purchases being made by people, they are only burning holes into their monetary assets.

So how can a company keep going strong when - honestly - it is offering more stuff right now than the wallet of an average consumer can afford? And I highly doubt that the worldwide GW fanbase has quadrupled since the arrival of 6th edition.

Is it just a matter of time till this company goes bankrupt (near future)?

Or have they been sitting on a mountain of profits for all these years and have now decided to give back something to the community?

The bulk of costs for GW at the moment, even though they don't itemise them specifically, has to be overhead; especially rent and other overheads for the retail network.

It makes sense to hire more staff and buy more machinery to increase the product range, which they did a year or so ago, according to a poster here who'd been to a designers' open day.

They're not putting out 4 times more product, however, and the increase in costs is probably marginal.

Personally, I can't see why people would complain about having more choice. Of bigger import is whether some models are rushed; personally, I don't think there's the same attention to detail in, say, the tyranid crone, vs the old carnifexes. There's more texture and little touches on the old Fexes, some of the new models do feel more of a cut and paste job.

If you look at their mid year reports, you will find that their operating expenses (overhead) have decreased and their operating income (royalties)has increased. So that theory doesn't hold water.

**cammy**

Also even if they were producing at 4 times the output with only marginal staff increases and machinery they are a hell of a lot more effeciant, because it would mean they were outpouring more in less time, and in a manufacturing environment just adding extra bodies makes no difference so.the efficiencies have to come from things upfront like designs that are built to.minimise waste on the engines. All on all its actually a good sign and it also means costs for raw materials.will drop for be due to higher volumes.

**wuestenfux**

Okay, its not really a surprise.

CAD design and digital production paired with the fact that new rules are kept at a minimum make it possible to release models, supplements and whatnot quicker than before.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Idolator wrote:

If you look at their mid year reports, you will find that their operating expenses (overhead) have decreased and their operating income (royalties)has increased. So that theory doesn't hold water.

Firstly, we're all speculating as we don't have access to more details.

Secondly, your argument doesn't hold water, as they've been cutting down on store expenses, and as I suggested, store overheads are a far bigger drain on resources than design overheads. So while they've been increasing spending on design, as GW staff have commented, that increase has been masked by the cost-cutting elsewhere.

GW might well make lots of silly decisions, but increasing the range makes financial sense and isn't de facto a bad thing, as long as the quality doesn't suffer.

.