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.

But they already do that. The year after Space Hulk came out there was an expectation that that September would be as big. It wasn't, because they didn't release anything like Space Hulk.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But they already do that. The year after Space Hulk came out there was an expectation that that September would be as big. It wasn't, because they didn't release anything like Space Hulk.

Occasional spikes are something investors live with. Yearly spikes aren't. It's easy enough to put into the financial report 'Space Hulk sold amazingly beyond expectations' and not deliver again because that sort of spike happens. Yearly spikes and troughs are different, and the kind of thing buisinesses want to avoid in the case of shareholders. If investors jump in because you're in a huge yearly spike, then see you go into a yearly trough next year, they'll likely jump ship.

The point I'm making is that I know there was pressure, at least with GWOZ, to push the following September to match the previous one when Space Hulk came out.

Surely they can counteract the surge in sales this year by just reducing the promotion time even further next year.

They could just release everything in unlabelled black boxes that you're not allowed to open until you have had them at home for a week.

 insaniak wrote:
Surely they can counteract the surge in sales this year by just reducing the promotion time even further next year.

They could just release everything in unlabelled black boxes that you're not allowed to open until you have had them at home for a week.

Kind of like MtG?

Buy a box of 15 models for $50. You will get 10 Commons, 3 Uncommons, and 2 rares (or whatever the breakdown is).

No, MtG cards are previewed in advance of release. It's amazing that the game is still going... you would think by now that WotC would have realised that telling people what they are releasing is just hurting their sales.

GW shareholders are used to falling sales, don't shock them with actual growth.

 insaniak wrote:
Alternatively, they could just make sure that next year's releases don't suck.

So, no releases for Wood Elves, SoB etc. ever unless GW manages to pull of a incredibly good sales year...

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
- Speaking of rules, I asked him about folding the Black Templars into the vanilla Space Marines Codex, he semmed dubious it was doable, arguing that while Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists are very close and are both adhering to the Codex Astartes, Black Templars diverge a lot. He neither confirmed nor denied that the Templars would be folded into the future iteration of the Space Marines Codex ;

Good to know that I'm a better games designer than he is.

- We talked a bit about the Sisters of Battle. While he did not confirmed they’re being worked on, he said that considering the age of the models it would be a very long process (Jes Goodwyn’s design sketches for the Heldrake, that a model designer had brought with him were dated of summer 2011 IIRC).

This is completely unsurprising, given the barely token recognition that women get from GW.

You're kidding right? I mean more than 50% of the models that are in Eldar and Dark Eldar armies come with breasts... I mean howling banshees are all female models, and unless all those combat drugs had I levels of estrogen, Im inclined to think that wyche breasts are legit and authentic as well

Furthermore, SoB aren't "womanly" at all. They look ugly, have weird hairstyles and I'd not tap them...under any circumstances. Seriously.

I also heard they suck at cooking.

*ducks*

 Sigvatr wrote:
Furthermore, SoB aren't "womanly" at all. They look ugly, have weird hairstyles and I'd not tap them...under any circumstances. Seriously.

I also heard they suck at cooking.

*ducks*

This is why we can't have nice things.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
So if they play test rules in house and have tournament winners test out, what is the issue?

--Playtest changes are noted and ignored
--In house playtest team over rules tournament players
--Suits override playtest teams
--Playtesting team isn't any good

Or a combination of all the above?

Having been on a GW playtest team once, it was the bolded one. They have a very specific idea of how they wanted things to be and weren't really open to radical changes.

But that was almost a decade ago. I'm not sure how it's going now.

Of course, I'm not someone who believes anything's going wrong with the game now either.

- Regarding Codices, he did say that they intend to try and get back to each army every four years (or so). He acknowledged some armies have fallen behind but mentioned that he has written army books or codices for armies that are yet to be released ;

Not at all surprising, makes you wonder what gems are being left on the shelf.

- We talked a bit about the Sisters of Battle. While he did not confirmed they’re being worked on, he said that considering the age of the models it would be a very long process (Jes Goodwyn’s design sketches for the Heldrake, that a model designer had brought with him were dated of summer 2011 IIRC).

I am both shocked and appalled that Jes Goodwyn designed that model.. I can only imagine the design sketches looked completely different?

Robin was very open about GW’s marketing and sales policies, which I found very interesting :
- when I asked him why there was only one Codex release this year, he explained that if they released more this year, their financial results would skyrocket abnormally and shareholders would expect sales to be as good, if not better next year. Basically, they withheld releases to smooth over the results year to year ;

A good argument against being a publically owned company.

- I asked him how they playtested new rules. Robin explained they have an inhouse team dedicated to that and they call upon renowned tournament players to assist. When I asked him about an open beta for a new edition (like PP did for Warmachine Mk2), he did not seem to keen.

The impression I have got from both this and Mat Ward's comments if that the games developer's hands are tied to a certain extent. 'We want this changed', which would come from public testing, would be an absolute waste of time when you have the 'suits' explaining that they want everyone to have to buy a flyer next edition, or that massive hordes are now going to have unreasonably beneficial rules.

The delay in releasing a second codex so they can basically sandbag expectations is pretty disappointing to hear.

I also don't understand the logic of it considering this would only delay the same situation they are trying to avoid.

By pushing a book back it only points to 2013 being a monster year with a cram packed schedule and thus inflate 2014 expectations.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This actually explains why they have some horrible rules.

They make the model first, then try to shoehorn it into a codex....seriously?

This also explains why Dark Apostles can't take terminator armor - no model.

At this rate within an edition space marines will have literally 10x the options of every other codex. In fact they'll probably have to give them another spin-off codex to contain them all!

Codex: Space Marine Armoury?

BTW it what form would it be legal for a non-GW company, to release miniatures and then some rules with point costs intended for use in major tabletop games? E.g. Space Elf close combat constructs. Maybe it would give GW managers a second thought, piling up a warehouse of unreleased greens.

 CrazyBones wrote:
The delay in releasing a second codex so they can basically sandbag expectations is pretty disappointing to hear.

I also don't understand the logic of it considering this would only delay the same situation they are trying to avoid.

By pushing a book back it only points to 2013 being a monster year with a cram packed schedule and thus inflate 2014 expectations.

Not quite-- the release of 40k 6th edition and Dark Vengeance likely created sales well in excess of those of any normal release.

 Kroothawk wrote:
BTW it what form would it be legal for a non-GW company, to release miniatures and then some rules with point costs intended for use in major tabletop games? E.g. Space Elf close combat constructs. Maybe it would give GW managers a second thought, piling up a warehouse of unreleased greens.

You mean like the snafu they had last year over the tervigon and thunderwolves?

knowing now that they sit on the model as long as they do, it kinda disappoints me... part of building a business requires your customers to be comfortable with your decision making skills, and if the new eldar models are any indication of what happened last time, I wouldnt be surprised if certain companies were doing just that.

and since they only have to make a few minor modifications to not violate copyright laws, its only a matter of time before the model arms race takes off again

 Kingsley wrote:

 CrazyBones wrote:
The delay in releasing a second codex so they can basically sandbag expectations is pretty disappointing to hear.

I also don't understand the logic of it considering this would only delay the same situation they are trying to avoid.

By pushing a book back it only points to 2013 being a monster year with a cram packed schedule and thus inflate 2014 expectations.

Not quite-- the release of 40k 6th edition and Dark Vengeance likely created sales well in excess of those of any normal release.

True but some of that would have to make up for only releasing one codex this year.

Really interesting article about elements of this interview, well worth a read and will explain some reasoning behind Robin's comments

http://theback40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-vice-thats-squeezing-gw.html

 Pacific wrote:
Really interesting article about elements of this interview, well worth a read and will explain some reasoning behind Robin's comments

http://theback40k.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-vice-thats-squeezing-gw.html

That was a nice read. Thank you.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This actually explains why they have some horrible rules.

They make the model first, then try to shoehorn it into a codex....seriously?

I have to agree with this. From a gaming standpoint, it would be far better if the concept for the codex and its rules were created up front, and then the model designers were allowed to create the miniatures based upon the written descriptions with as much artistic leeway as they desired.

Except they are already tied to 20+ units from the previous 3+ army books, why is coming up with rules for a couple of more units so restrictive?
I find it hard to believe that this is some wild extreme for most TTG companies. I really doubt that PP designs the rules for a unit or caster as a complete abstraction and then sends an e-mail to the art department saying "we need some sort of pig cannon, it could shoot pigs...or be shot by pigs I guess, that's your call. Concepts by Tuesday. "

 plastictrees wrote:
Except they are already tied to 20+ units from the previous 3+ army books, why is coming up with rules for a couple of more units so restrictive?
I find it hard to believe that this is some wild extreme for most TTG companies. I really doubt that PP designs the rules for a unit or caster as a complete abstraction and then sends an e-mail to the art department saying "we need some sort of pig cannon, it could shoot pigs...or be shot by pigs I guess, that's your call. Concepts by Tuesday. "

It's about cohesiveness. From a purely game-play standpoint, the rules and fluff should come before the miniatures. Otherwise, a rules-writer can find himself in a situation where he has to force in something that doesn't really fit the overall feel of the rest of the codex/army book. Or, a fluff-writer might find himself having to justify the existence of a creature/unit/character that is a radical departure from the rest of the work.

I also doubt that PP comes up with rules first. I'm fairly confident they come up overall concept first, rather than designing a random miniature and then trying to find a game concept for that miniature to fill.