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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Back in my days, people on Dakka used to complain about people on Dakka, not Facebook.

Dakka? Ha you were lucky! We had people in the store complaining about people on dakka. And when people in the store asked 'what's dakka?' We had to wind up the generator with our penny-farthings and start up windows '95 to demonstrate t'internet.

Just wait for the next coming threads and posts later this month...

..."Who cares about stock prices, are you a shareholder?"...

..."So what about the finances, I'm still having fun!"...

..."It's all the [WAAC/Negative Nancies/Babies/Whinging and Moaners™] fault GW is doing so bad!"...

It's gonna be fun.

 TheKbob wrote:
Just wait for the next coming threads and posts later this month...

..."Who cares about stock prices, are you a shareholder?"...

..."So what about the finances, I'm still having fun!"...

..."It's all the [WAAC/Negative Nancies/Babies/Whinging and Moaners™] fault GW is doing so bad!"...

It's gonna be fun.

Plus we'll all know who will make such comments.

By the same token they'll know exactly what us "haterz" will say too...

I will be slightly disappointed if the financials are fairly good. Not because I want GW to fail but because, in the absence of any other avenue, a sound financial kicking is the only way open to us as customers to convey our displeasure.

If they post reasonable results, then I will be disappointed in the 40K playing community for rewarding such half-assedry sufficiently to let GW "get away with it" and I will also be disappointed that any incentive for GW to change will, once again, have disappeared.

One thing's for sure, I won't be surprised if the "I told you so's" ring long and loud around Dakka for far longer and far louder than what would happen if the report is more in line with what I, and others, have anticipated.

 azreal13 wrote:
I will be slightly disappointed if the financials are fairly good. Not because I want GW to fail but because, in the absence of any other avenue, a sound financial kicking is the only way open to us as customers to convey our displeasure.

If they post reasonable results, then I will be disappointed in the 40K playing community for rewarding such half-assedry sufficiently to let GW "get away with it" and I will also be disappointed that any incentive for GW to change will, once again, have disappeared.

One thing's for sure, I won't be surprised if the "I told you so's" ring long and loud around Dakka for far longer and far louder than what would happen if the report is more in line with what I, and others, have anticipated.

Amen. I hope the financials are bad for the same reason, because rewarding such behavior is destructive longterm.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I will be slightly disappointed if the financials are fairly good. Not because I want GW to fail but because, in the absence of any other avenue, a sound financial kicking is the only way open to us as customers to convey our displeasure.

If they post reasonable results, then I will be disappointed in the 40K playing community for rewarding such half-assedry sufficiently to let GW "get away with it" and I will also be disappointed that any incentive for GW to change will, once again, have disappeared.

One thing's for sure, I won't be surprised if the "I told you so's" ring long and loud around Dakka for far longer and far louder than what would happen if the report is more in line with what I, and others, have anticipated.

Amen. I hope the financials are bad for the same reason, because rewarding such behavior is destructive longterm.

I will gladly go out and buy the models necessary to make my Blood Angels and Grey Knights work in 7E if the complaints are fixed, but that's going to require just as you both suggest; making it hurt where it counts.

Until then, I will gladly enjoy my other games.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Back in my days, people on Dakka used to complain about people on Dakka, not Facebook.

Dakka? Ha you were lucky! We had people in the store complaining about people on dakka. And when people in the store asked 'what's dakka?' We had to wind up the generator with our penny-farthings and start up windows '95 to demonstrate t'internet.

Awwww, no 4 Yorkshireman fans?

 azreal13 wrote:
One thing's for sure, I won't be surprised if the "I told you so's" ring long and loud around Dakka for far longer and far louder than what would happen if the report is more in line with what I, and others, have anticipated.

I've already hedged my bets by blaming it on the release of 7th to plump the numbers, despite the cannibalization of future numbers. It it's still bad *despite* the 7th shenanigans... GW is fethed.

 Wulfmar wrote:

Doombunny wrote:

So we can see that the saving from Black Reach is a hell of a lot more than the saving from Storm Claw. Not only that, but you're getting a better selection of models. And you're also paying less, because when Black Reach was released the models were priced cheaper than they are today.

That's not to say that Storm Claw isn't a bargain compared to GW's normal pricing. But to say that Storm Claw demonstrates people needlessly complaining about GW is also off. In fact, it demonstrates almost the opposite. The saving from the boxset has not only fallen by almost half, the boxset itself is also of a lower quality.

Except Aobr is snap fit and SC is real models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Back in my days, people on Dakka used to complain about people on Dakka, not Facebook.

Dakka? Ha you were lucky! We had people in the store complaining about people on dakka. And when people in the store asked 'what's dakka?' We had to wind up the generator with our penny-farthings and start up windows '95 to demonstrate t'internet.

Back in my day, we had people AT dakka complaining about people at dakka.

To complain that GW have put out a cheaper bundle of models that they sell at very high individual prices is a bit like complaining that your husband is beating you less hard than before.

I think GW's next set of financials will be fine. New editions tend to make things appear better than they really are.

 Dakkamite wrote:
You tell 'em OP.

Like, actually tell them, rather than bitch about it here.

Ok that made me laugh. Well done.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And it's not even complaining on Dakka about complaining on Dakka, it's complaining on Dakka about complaining on Facebook I couldn't really see any other outcome.

I think we should go onto Facebook and complain about people complaining on Dakka about people complaining about Chaos. Repeat the process enough times and we might create a black hole of stupid.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think GW's next set of financials will be fine. New editions tend to make things appear better than they really are.

Yeah, they've also done Imperial Knights which sold really well from the anecdotal evidence I've seen, so I expect this past half year will have been positive enough for them to put out a half decent report.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think GW's next set of financials will be fine. New editions tend to make things appear better than they really are.

Yeah, they've also done Imperial Knights which sold really well from the anecdotal evidence I've seen, so I expect this past half year will have been positive enough for them to put out a half decent report.

I'm not so confident.

During the half year before the last report (Jan., 2014), SM came out but couldn't prevent the drop in revenue.

 pretre wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:

Doombunny wrote:

So we can see that the saving from Black Reach is a hell of a lot more than the saving from Storm Claw. Not only that, but you're getting a better selection of models. And you're also paying less, because when Black Reach was released the models were priced cheaper than they are today.

That's not to say that Storm Claw isn't a bargain compared to GW's normal pricing. But to say that Storm Claw demonstrates people needlessly complaining about GW is also off. In fact, it demonstrates almost the opposite. The saving from the boxset has not only fallen by almost half, the boxset itself is also of a lower quality.

Except Aobr is snap fit and SC is real models.

Yes, that changes things somewhat. However, I'd still argue that a Dreadnought, 20 Boyz and Deffkoptas instead of Kans is an improvement, especially when you consider the far greater financial saving. It's not only more models, but the models themselves are far more useful in terms of financial saving/gameplay.

 pretre wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:

Doombunny wrote:

So we can see that the saving from Black Reach is a hell of a lot more than the saving from Storm Claw. Not only that, but you're getting a better selection of models. And you're also paying less, because when Black Reach was released the models were priced cheaper than they are today.

That's not to say that Storm Claw isn't a bargain compared to GW's normal pricing. But to say that Storm Claw demonstrates people needlessly complaining about GW is also off. In fact, it demonstrates almost the opposite. The saving from the boxset has not only fallen by almost half, the boxset itself is also of a lower quality.

Except Aobr is snap fit and SC is real models.

I actually prefer snap fit models for 90% of things.

 wuestenfux wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think GW's next set of financials will be fine. New editions tend to make things appear better than they really are.

Yeah, they've also done Imperial Knights which sold really well from the anecdotal evidence I've seen, so I expect this past half year will have been positive enough for them to put out a half decent report.

I'm not so confident.

During the half year before the last report (Jan., 2014), SM came out but couldn't prevent the drop in revenue.

Iirc when 6th came out a couple of years ago there was some talk about how they still only had that 2% or so growth they had the last couple of years before as well, there was no real bump there.

Doombunny wrote:
I'd still argue that a Dreadnought, 20 Boyz and Deffkoptas instead of Kans is an improvement, especially when you consider the far greater financial saving. It's not only more models, but the models themselves are far more useful in terms of financial saving/gameplay.

That's a fair argument, but
1: some of argument I've seen for how AOBR was a much better deal rely on using the metal deffkopta pricing, which is absurd.
2: Snapfit boyz and nobz take a LOT of cleaning up, and a lot of reposing. I've sawn off and reposed limbs on every single one of mine to get a variety of poses. And, of course, having all those spare gubbins is a must for ork fans.
3: More crucially, this is apparently the first of a series. So you've got a good chance of a discount on the army you want rather than an army you don't want - which is surely the best bargain of all? There's a good chance that the standard beginner boxes, like Dark Vengeance, will in any case remain.

Sets like Stormclaw give use more choice, at a better price. The fact that a good few people regard it as an "insult" is hilarious. If you moan about the good things as well as (justifiably) about the bad things, how are GW supposed to know when they actually get things right?

I refuse to be trained to pay more than $100 for a starter or expansion.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I actually prefer snap fit models for 90% of things.

Glad to see I'm not alone! I hate assembling models (enjoy painting them though), so I'd be one of the few who would absolutely love if GW did everything snap-fit. I rarely if ever convert anything so the loss of that wouldn't hurt me.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Doombunny wrote:
I'd still argue that a Dreadnought, 20 Boyz and Deffkoptas instead of Kans is an improvement, especially when you consider the far greater financial saving. It's not only more models, but the models themselves are far more useful in terms of financial saving/gameplay.

That's a fair argument, but
1: some of argument I've seen for how AOBR was a much better deal rely on using the metal deffkopta pricing, which is absurd.

Not at all. Whilst they do make up a sizeable portion of the saving, they only give a £30 advantage over Storm Claw. The rest of the £90 comes from elsewhere. And I'd add that as I forgot to include the templates included in AOBR, the difference is even greater.

Not that it makes a difference. If the models are metal, so what? GW has yet to supply a plastic kit for them, so AOBR is a great saving. In fact, if anything it makes AOBR even more appealing.

Sets like Stormclaw give use more choice, at a better price. The fact that a good few people regard it as an "insult" is hilarious. If you moan about the good things as well as (justifiably) about the bad things, how are GW supposed to know when they actually get things right?

Indeed, but that wasn't my point. Stormclaw is certainly a good deal compared to GW prices. My point was that Stormclaw, compared to Black Reach, is the worse of the two deals. It's a demonstration of the policies GW has chosen to implement, and which I think are the root of the anger. People aren't angry about Stormclaw, they're angry at GW and are allowing that anger to cloud their vision of Stormclaw's value relative to normal GW products.

...except that Stormclaw isn't a replacement for AOBR, or DV. It's an additional option.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
...except that Stormclaw isn't a replacement for AOBR, or DV. It's an additional option.

It may not be a replacement, but it's going to get compared. They are both sets that contain 2 forces and a rulebook.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
1: some of argument I've seen for how AOBR was a much better deal rely on using the metal deffkopta pricing, which is absurd.

Absurd how? Which other Deffkopta should the price be compared to?


It looks like maybe this sold out? If so, good. I like the idea of little campaign sets that are rotated in and out and hope they keep doing them.

 Ouze wrote:
It looks like maybe this sold out? If so, good.

Yeah, it's great how people who wanted it can't buy it

Pretty terrible if you ask me. There'll be plenty of people who won't even know about the box's existence until after it's sold out.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It looks like maybe this sold out? If so, good.

Yeah, it's great how people who wanted it can't buy it

Pretty terrible if you ask me. There'll be plenty of people who won't even know about the box's existence until after it's sold out.

Just like with Space Hulk. Silly GW, that thing was a licence to print money right there.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
...except that Stormclaw isn't a replacement for AOBR, or DV. It's an additional option.

No, it's not. However, they are similar sets. They contain two small armies, and the rules. They (if AOBR was released now) would probably market around the same price.

Though this is tempting me to do a comparison of all the GW boxsets. Anyone got a list of them and what was in them?

Doombunny wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
...except that Stormclaw isn't a replacement for AOBR, or DV. It's an additional option.

No, it's not. However, they are similar sets. They contain two small armies, and the rules. They (if AOBR was released now) would probably market around the same price.

Though this is tempting me to do a comparison of all the GW boxsets. Anyone got a list of them and what was in them?

2nd edition: 20x snap-fit Tactical Marines (Flamer + Missile Launcher), 20 Goff Orks (snap-fit/single pose), 40 Gretchin/Grots (snap-fit/single pose), card stock Ork Dreadnought, card ruins
3rd edition: 10x Tactical Marines (Flamer + Missile Launcher), 1x Landspeeder, 20x Dark Eldar Warriors, plastic jungle trees
4th edition: 10 Tactical Marines (Flamer + Missile Launcher), 1x Imperial Pilot (Objective?), 6x Genestealers, 10x Termagants, ruins/terrain

And of course 5th is AOBR and 6th is DV, which at least to GW's credit gave real starting armies with HQ and the like.

3rd had the plastic ruins and barricades too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7Fd_wZ4GOcs/TicRyCloOMI/AAAAAAAAArI/Y6MzOXemfIc/s1600/pic20262_lg.jpg

Plus the 4th ed. terrain piece of the crashed Aquila lander was somewhat unique and quite a significant piece of that box. It wasn't available outside of the starter for some time. IIRC (as the wayback machine does not want to play with GW's old links) it was about £20-£25 when separate.

40KNobz11 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Pointless post is pointless.

+1

+2


Snapfit models are NEVER as much worth as their boxed set counterparts, even if their design is unique.

 Grimtuff wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It looks like maybe this sold out? If so, good.

Yeah, it's great how people who wanted it can't buy it

Pretty terrible if you ask me. There'll be plenty of people who won't even know about the box's existence until after it's sold out.

Just like with Space Hulk. Silly GW, that thing was a licence to print money right there.

If they put out Space Hulk tomorrow, same as the last release, at the same price, I'd buy it right now. I did a thread on that and overwhelming majority would either by the same Space Hulk or one with additional rules, encounters, and some new models. Given the rate they are pumping out (admittedly garbage) scenarios and new plastic models, you'd think one new Nid, one new Blood Angel, a new scenario, $100 and Bob's Your Uncle.