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.

There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

Back on topic, I think a more likely rumor would be that Bretonnia is getting an update in the near future (sometime this year), and the models pulled were all finecast and will likely be redone in plastic.

riburn3 wrote:
There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

There's no way.

Empire's is hardly old, and we've been told Dwarves are coming up with an individual book next month.

The idea of Warhammer being split into large "forces of order" or "kingdoms of men" books makes no sense regarding the current releases. Dark Elves wouldn't have been a separate book.

Bretonnians are slotted to get an update, hence the removal of models from the online store. They're likely to get newer sculpts, with new kits to replace the old, outdated ones.

These rumors are likely coming from someone outside the WHFB community. Which isn't an issue, but the direction GW seems to be taking does not involve "squatting" Bretonnians.

I'll bet on that.

 -Loki- wrote:
That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

Which are largely meaningless because popularity varies from region to region. I'd say about a third of Fantasy players near me collected either Brets or Empire (not necessarily as their only army, for me, Brets are my 2nd army next to Lizardmen).

I'll be closely watching for new Bretonnians. Though I don't think my desire for Bretonnians fits in with GW's current aesthetic (I prefer the old school Bretonnians that didn't have massive heads and excessive detail).

 -Loki- wrote:

riburn3 wrote:
There's a ton of talk about what does and doesn't sell with no reference at all to actual GW sales figures. Only anecdotal "a guy who owns shop A says this range doesn't sell".

That's because GW doesn't release those sales figures, so the only figures we CAN refer to are individual store or supplier figures.

My point exactly. It's purely anecdotal at that point. My store sells as much fantasy as it does 40k but I don't take that to mean both games are equal in sales nationwide or worldwide. What's popular at one location doesn't mean it's that way at another. Heck, even in my own city there's a couple of stores that will only play 40k at the store and stock based on that, and there's a store with a much larger Fantasy following and a product selection to match. I'm sure other cities or regions follow a similar pattern.

If anything, Fantasy has been rebounding lately as more disatisfied 40k players give the system a try. If it truly were dying they wouldn't have updated 5 fantasy armies last year only to consolidate armies a year or two later, that would be bad business. I believe Bretonnia will be getting an update, and it will be before the end of the year.

 carlos13th wrote:
The other (And probably primairy) reason Mantic havent made a human line is that there are so many historical miniatures that are a great price and quality you can base Kingsdoms of Men armies off that in making a fantasy human line you are competing with every other manufacturer out there.

Think this is probably an important consideration. Really, Bretonnians are just a less-fantastical version of Empire - you can get better miniatures for knights/men-at-arms and billmen/archers etc for less money from Perry (amongst many other manufacturers). And, I know a lot of people tend to take that route.

However, they do seem quite a popular army (from what I can see), in a lot of cases I think from closet Historicals players, and definitely were last edition when cavalry was that much more effective. Also, there is nothing to stop GW releasing a massive plastic kit for them, making the rules for it so good that it is an essential purpose, and going from there. Then even if you lose out on the rank and file sales to other manufacturers they will still make money from that and the army book.

 Pacific wrote:
Really, Bretonnians are just a less-fantastical version of Empire

No. Bretonnians are medieval, Empire is renaissance. Both are filled with magic users and cryptozoological organism.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Or could be... fantasy humans don't sell. Period.

Citation needed

I said "could be"?

Why does my hypothesis need a citation, but the alternative hypotheses of other people here don't?

Because when you say "Period." in this manner after a statement - be it actual fact, or hypothesis, in common argot you are implying that there is no debate worth having, nothing will sway your mind on the matter. Ergo, that takes it from hypothesis to a statement of fact.

Or, probably more likely, i think he might have been busting your balls, as you're always crowing at people for citations.

 Haight wrote:



Because when you say "Period." in this manner after a statement - be it actual fact, or hypothesis, in common argot you are implying that there is no debate worth having, nothing will sway your mind on the matter. Ergo, that takes it from hypothesis to a statement of fact.

No I am not, because you are ignoring the context of the post (which was quoted) this line responded to.

The original post was a list of possible / hypothesized reasons, ending with an "all of the above".

. It could be ....
. it could be ....
. it could be ...
. it could be all of the above.

To this post, I responded with a possible alternative explanation ("could be"), which would in itself be sufficient and equally likely to explain things ("period").

There is no way the closing "period" could be interpreted the way you did above, if people would read the full post that the sentence appeared in.

The "period" underlines the "occam's razor" appeal of my side of the argument, needing "only one" reason to explain a phenomenon, that others attribute to a (IMO) less plausible combination of several reasons that would need to be true to explain the phenomenon in question.

Context. It matters.

 Haight wrote:


Or, probably more likely, i think he might have been busting your balls, as you're always crowing at people for citations.

Do I?

I wasn't aware of that.

In the nearly twenty years I been playing or following this game, two books have gone away. Dogs of war and chaos dwarves. Neither had more than one book, and both books were mostly just white dwarf articles. Both also had predominantly metal model lines. The Bret's have had at least 2 books and have 4 current kits that I see on the table frequently in other armies. I imagine the moods are long paid for, and gw's profit or loss comes from their manufacturing costs only. Even on the 40k side, the sisters of battle - with a much less developed line than Brets - have had a new codex. Yes BT got folded into space marines, but their connection with that book is pretty strong, and they only had the one book ever.

The worst I could see happening to Brets is a digital book only release, but even that i doubt. Tombkings got a book, and I can't imagine their old book prompted more sales than the Brets'.

Instead, my guess is that sales for the line hum on well enough that there hasn't been pressure to renew it (unlike necrons or dark eldar). If they are dropped, it will be a brand new move for gw.

This thread is not about Zweischeid's false assumptions about Empire sales. Can we stop this?

 Kroothawk wrote:
This thread is not about Zweischeid's false assumptions about Empire sales. Can we stop this?

Sound advice there - so yes, please!

Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

The problem with that is BT really were Black and White codex Marines with a couple of differences. The only real similarity Brettonians and Empire share are both being humans. The army structure between the two is entirely different. They really are different armies, much more so tha even current Space Marine books.

Not saying it's not going to happen, and it makes sense if they're consolidating armies as previous rumours suggested. An Armies of Men book makes sense, as do Undead, Elven Kingdoms, Forces of Chaos, etc. But using the example of Black Templars is just wrong, since the circumstances of it happening are different. That was a one off removal of an unneeded extra Space Marine codex. This is part of an overall consolidation of all Warhammer armies, according to previous rumours.

This sounds like a game of Chinese whispers which stem from ANOTHER rumour that the next series of army books (i.e. 9th edition) will be condensed into volumes or 2-3 or even 4 armies in one tome. Whilst the rumour of this happened does come from a reliable source (namely 75hastings69) the application of this to the Bretonnian army book on this time scale with this much specificity holds little to no merit. It appears that they are speculating on how the volumes would be condensed (whether under themes, race or geography) which has already been discussed to death with little or no progress.

So everyone can move on from here, as this rumour about squatting Brets is pure speculation.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well most people called BS on BT getting rolled into tge vanilla marine codex. I personally believe there is a reason Brettonians haven't been updated in forever, this rumour makes perfect sense to me.

I'm not saying it's not possible, however I think there's a big leap from doing that with BT and doing it with Brets. BT are basically just marines. It is totally conceivable to me you could just lump all marines in to one codex and have special rules for each chapter or supplements (like they had in 2nd edition).

Bretonnians however I think are quite unique from the Empire. There are no crossover troops or anything like Marine armies. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm not sure BT being swallowed by Marines is equivalent to Brets being swallowed by Empire.

I can clearly remember the release of 5th ed, with the relaunched Brets (who up until then were an insanely rare army, barely covered in any books or model ranges) and totally reworked Lizardmen. Due to their inclusion in the box both armies became instant hits and Brets especially with their prayers and lance formation cav everywhere were a very popular army with 6 or 7 armies of them at our local club alone. Interest has died out over them because they have not been promoted effectively for the 17 years since...

Yeah, I tend to be of the opinion that almost all armies have the potential to be popular if they're pushed effectively, and all armies have the potential to have poor sales if you leave them on the shelf for 11 years without an update or anything to push them in to the limelight.

Brets are the most unique army in fantasy. I've got a small force, and I have seen a force of them in action. They are also one of the great armies. They have probably the best cavalry in the game, and deadliest charge move with the lance. They are still usable, and nothing like the Empire. Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress. Yes there is medieval stuff in there, but it's more arthurian.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Brets are the most unique army in fantasy. I've got a small force, and I have seen a force of them in action. They are also one of the great armies. They have probably the best cavalry in the game, and deadliest charge move with the lance. They are still usable, and nothing like the Empire. Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress. Yes there is medieval stuff in there, but it's more arthurian.

When they were good, they were more Arthurian. The last Army Book replaced that with the "French people who suck" theme.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Also, I think they aren't medieval based. It's arthurian mythology for them, with green Knight and fay enchantress.

Uh ? Isn't Arthurian legends just the perfect representative of medieval stories ?
Also, don't Bretonians reference other medieval stuff, like La Chanson de Roland ?


Also, if I remember well, even when I started WHFB, back when the starter box was Bretonians vs Lizarmen (with a paper tower included in the box ), I remember Bretonians has having French-sounding names. Well, actually the name were translated in French, so of course they were French-sounding, but Bordeleau ? Lionesse ? Quenelle ? Even the maps I remember as looking like a heavily distorted France. Just like Empire, for some reason, looked German .

I don't see how commenting on the past of Bretonnians lore is really contributing to the discussion, but again I'll bite.

The distinction Alex was getting at was historical vs. mythological. Now the entire point of most WHFB armies from the start was that they are pretty much just a lot of both fantasy and historical lore thrown in a blender, though the mix varies. This works for the aesthetic as well as the fluff. So arguing either way is unproductive, because the real answer is: it's both, with some Monty Python thrown in for good measure.

The Bretonnian army wasn't originally anything like it's current form. They were powdered wig aristocrats more akin to pre-French Revolution France rather than a bunch of knights. However they retconned, scaled the timeline back and fleshed them out into a more well rounded combat force based upon Arthurian and Charlemagnian lore. It's that blend which afforded it both the mystical foreign factor (to get people interested) and the familiar (to make the lore more recognizable and easier to digest).

On a personal note: All I can hope for with a new release of anything Bretonnian is that they retain the current artwork and aesthetic rather than throwing us the current pseudo water-colour distorted artwork of the Empire, OK and Lizardmen books or the cartoony over-the-topness of some of the new models (see: Karl Franz and his loyal mount puffy-chicken, and Sleepy: the DE war hydra).

 Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:
Empire was actually one of the better FB sellers until the current book hit.

So that's not it.

No it wasn't. Ronnie Renton left 2008..ish. Shortly after the 7th Edition Empire book. Knowing that Empire was the bottom of the pile, he decided to not make a version for Kings of War (in Miniatures).

Early Kings of War is a good indicator for what sells and what doesn't. It gave rule, but no miniatures, for Empire-style armies ("inviting" people to use miniatures from other manufacturers), but made miniatures for profitable lines (Elves, Orcs, etc..) that could be used with other manufacturers' rules (e.g. GW),

Empire were a loss-maker with their 6th Edition book. They were a loss maker with their 7th Edition book. They are a loss maker with their 8th Edition, despite having more new kits and development resource thrown at them than Tau and Eldar together.

Why should Brets be different?

That explains why the Perrys are expanding their medieval range.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/gw-changes-stores-closing-and-armies-no.html?m=1

 mjl7atlas wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/gw-changes-stores-closing-and-armies-no.html?m=1

As far as I can tell, his "anonymous source" is a user on BoW called redben, who was then subsequently re-quoted all over the shop.

Firstly, the majority of that list appears to be rubbish, secondly, the rumour of WHFB armies getting rolled into a few "themed" books has been kicking around for ages and dovetails much better with an idea of Bretts losing their own book than being squatted entirely. (Although, as one of only two WHFB armies I'd likely ever start, that might just be optimism talking)

When reading articles about politics, I always mentally substute the phrase "anonymous source" with "my arse". I think the same approach works here.

 marielle wrote:


That explains why the Perrys are expanding their medieval range.

They Perrys do what they do because like other ex-GW-creative staff (e.g. Rick Priestely), they have an anti-competition clause upon leaving. They aren't allowed to do (more profitable) high-fantasy (just yet).

But yes, by the same logic, the Natfka rumour doesn't make sense (to me).

Wood Elves and Khemri should get updates in time (likely/hopefully this year). They are "fantasy" enough to be worth it, whereas Bretonnians aren't.

I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

Not to mention that the "anonymous source" from natfka claims all German GW stores will be closed, which (in my humble opinion) is a totally bonkers misreading of the announced closure/down-sizing of the German regional HQ.

I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you've got the info about anti-competition from?

They're notoriously difficult to enforce, even if included in a contract. There would also be a time scale too, which the Perrys, still doing odd jobs for GW might still be under, but I doubt Priestley would have any such issue by now.

Priestely doesn't anymore, which is why he started Gates of Antares early 2013. I think it was one of the BoW video-interviews he did promoting that Kickstarter? I remember him saying he wasn't allowed to to sci-fi and fantasy for many years due to some clause (hence did historical at Warlord Games), and took a stab with Gates of Antares once that clause lapsed.

It is only my guess that the Perry's would have similar issues (and other sculptors, e.g. Juan Diaz, who does Japanese Historicals now?).

On the other hand, Ronnie Renton of, now, Mantic Games obviously "got out" without an anti-competition clause, though he wasn't a sculptor or game designer (and ironically the far more dangerous "future-competitor"). So it's not a given, I guess.

 Zweischneid wrote:


I'll happily do some penance if I am wrong.

This is, of course, Great News®™!