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.

I worked for GW during the release of LoTR the first time round - nothing can compare to how mental it was during that time, the units were literally flying off the shelves as fast as they could be put out. It was pretty awesome to be honest even as it was exhausting. Whether it's just some added years and me being a bit more jaded I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be the same sense of hysteria surrounding the films this time round - of course I'm only going off the few times I have been in a GW, or walked past a shop since the game was released, but that is just the impression I've got. Of course the game might still be selling reasonably well - but I'd bet my granny's teeth (which she is quite fond of) that they aren't selling even half of what they did back in those days. Actually, it would be physically impossible with just one man in each store

* On a side note, something being 'limited edition' doesn't necessarily mean what it should mean. Unless there is a stamped, coded note in each and every Hobbit box with a certified number out of the total production run (I'm guessing there isn't) then 'limited edition' could quite easily mean this is limited to 100, 10,000, 20-billion, or however many they want to make. As such boxes sat on the shelf doesn't really mean that much. I've worked in Independents that sell die-cast vehicles, stuff sold by Corgi etc. and so know a fair bit about that kind of stuff and the laws surrounding its use.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

He did kind of go there...

As far as I know, I am the only person in my area who bought the starter set, and it was only after I got home that I realized I had bought it out of reflex. It has been years since GW released anything that tripped my "Oooh, SHINY!" fixed action pattern.

The new, big, spiffy rulebook hasn't sold, though several lapsed LotR gamers have perused it. Apparently the new rules aren't all that stimulating.

The unit boxes have provoked peals of disbelieving laughter as soon as anyone sees their prices, and would be collecting dust if it were not for the fact that people hand them round saying, "Look, you're not going to believe this."

...And Christmas passed with all the shinies languishing on the shelves, and the influx of after-Christmas stocking-cash has mostly been going to 40K.

The only thing that The Hobbit has really done, is make us all nostalgic for WotR. We're going to have a big 4000 point battle next weekend.

Have to say all this Hobbit stuff made me rewatch the trilogy and I'm interested in digging out some of the old figures to paint. I've also noticed that a few I want are pretty cheap on eBay.

But I've no interest in paying current GW prices on their new stuff. They're just ridiculous. Much as I like the figures, the white council would have to be more than halved in price for me to even consider it.

They'll be prey to metal recasters. Because many people are not fans of either finecast, or paying £12-15 for 28mm figures.

I can tell you this much. The only reason that my local gaming story got in Hobbit was because GW was making them.

My FLGS has shifted 3 EfGT boxes, and a couple of Goblin Boxes, and one box of Hunter Wargs. Then again that's all they ordered, so...

 martin74 wrote:
No hobbit sales at my local store. Plenty of jokes made about it though. I did put up a post that if anyone at the local store was buying the starter box, I would go in 45 USD just for the scenery bits. Need that fr a Malifaux table.

Maybe this will help?

My local FLGS has sold less Hobbit stuff than Dreadball stuff, and they claim Mantic is DOA for them. I think they sold only one box of the Hobbit. That's gotta smart. Keep in mind this store is 10 minutes away from the LA Battle Bunker and offers a good discount, so most GW stuff sells well.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

It's just so obvious why Space Hulk sold fast. But GW seemed to think they could pull off the same trick with something no one had seen before. That's a challenge before you consider that as games go, Dreadfleet just wasn't very good.

They should have done Warhammer Quest, it ticks all the boxes that Space Hulk did. Now they are probably convinced that one off releases don't work.

Space hulk sold out because it appealed to more than one audience. 1 a lot of 40k players bought it for the extremely nice models. 2. It already had good street cred. 3. People who like 40k were interested in it because it was the same genre. 4. The game was made out of high quality tile pieces. 5. Anyone who likes small skirmish games were drawn to it as well. I am sure there are a lot more reasons it sold so well. Dreedfleet and Warhammer quest I have not even heard of.

The hobbit - may or may not be selling good. I don't know. I know my area no body plays it or is even interested in it unless they are using the models for conversions or counts as. The Lord of the rings is what got me buying GW models in the first place back when it came out. No one I knew played that either. So after I dropped a couple hundred dollars buying lotr I stopped an bought thousands of dollars worth of 40k models and play the game.

Maybe it's designed to pull in lotr fans into the hobby like it did me.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

If only for the delicious tears of nerdrage

I love the movie!!

GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

 Compel wrote:
The really scary thing?

It's still cheaper than the lego equivalent.

The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

 RiTides wrote:

I love the movie!!

GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

Sadly it just seems to be another example of how risk-averse GW is these days, and not only that but how they seem content to just keep flying in circles, retreading the same old ground time after time.

Always thought it was a shame that Dreadfleet didn't really take off - although it wasn't terribly well done, and felt to me like it had been 'murdered by committee' at the game design stage, at least it was an attempt to try something new and a shade of the kind of magic the company used to produce. And if the game did make very little money, the 'suits' who now control the output of the company will no doubt stymie any future releases of a similar ilk - which again I think is a terrible shame.

Agreed... I bought Dreadfleet, although ended up selling it.

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Almost no Hobbit sales in my local store, just 2 starter boxes, 1 rulebook and 3 Ork boxes.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

No - GW created the molds and stated that they were stopping production after a set number were made (and sold) though no one really knows what that number was or how fast it sold (I have seen it still on the shelves in three stores in the past month).

Actually blood reaper is correct: GW actively recalled and destroyed Dreadfleet boxes.

I've seen this a couple times and now I've got to ask. Do you have a picture (or can you find one) of the box cover? The local GW carrier in my area still has Dreadfleet boxes, so now I'm curious.

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

 Compel wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

Spoiler to that pointless flashback scene outside Moria used to shoehorn a villain into the story?

Howard A Treesong wrote:I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

Space Hulk is something completely different. It served as the perfect entry to the hobby once, attracting loads of the gamers (because MB did the advertising and marketing). It could have done the same again as the best possible entry product sold in general toy stores. They could have sold three times as much boxes and gained thousands of new customers. But for some reason noone understands, they were happy with only producing stock enough for 2 days and then destroying the moulds for the much needed Tyranid Genestealers and Blood Angels terminators (both getting Codices right after the box but nothing as flashing as these models). By far the dumbest management decision GW has ever done, crippling GW revenue for years to come.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

Rainbow Dash wrote:GW seems to have a disliking of women

Flashman wrote:He did kind of go there...

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

We've only had one guy pick up a copy since it came out, and holy because he's a notorious impulse spender...not that I'm complaining ;-)

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

I for one welcome the Elven chick. She can't detract from the story any more than that big albino orc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Lego is Ferrari and GW is bananas?

 Kroothawk wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

Space Hulk is something completely different. It served as the perfect entry to the hobby once, attracting loads of the gamers (because MB did the advertising and marketing). It could have done the same again as the best possible entry product sold in general toy stores. They could have sold three times as much boxes and gained thousands of new customers.

Are you thinking more of Space Crusade than Space Hulk? Space Hulk was not handled by MB or sold in toy stores but it was 20 years ago and I don't recall.

 RiTides wrote:


GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

It's not like GW have a year to release and sell other models from the film...

 Flashman wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

He did kind of go there...

Anything that gets Evangeline Lilly into the movie is fine by me.

 Flashman wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

Spoiler to that pointless flashback scene outside Moria used to shoehorn a villain into the story?

Nah, the scene at the Lonely Mountain!

Lorizael- They do have a year, but like anything else, people are most willing to buy when something is "hot", which is when the movie is released and soon after. Apparently the flashback dwarfs are coming soon, though, so that's cool

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Right, because comparing lego miniatures to GW miniatures is as reasonable as comparing bananas to Ferraris.

I'd more assume comparing a Pinto to Ferrari, or maybe like a go cart to a ferrari?

 Kroothawk wrote:

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

I don't think anyone can blame Tolkein for being a man of his time (he started his Middle Earth works during World War I) any more than we can blame Jackson for being a man of his.

In fact I kind of wish Jackson had gone a bit further in working in dark skinned good guys. It's hard not to be disquieted in LotR where heroic whites fight off hoards of dark skinned savages.

I guess Hobbit 'fixed' that by making the goblins even whiter than the heroes

There will be 3 films yes? Lots of time to build hype.

it won't help because the models are so expensive

Zoned wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Right, because comparing lego miniatures to GW miniatures is as reasonable as comparing bananas to Ferraris.

Good lord, you're really buying into a certain other poster's utter tosh aren't you?

You really cannot compare the two to the same extent. The Lego kit has more than just the figures as it is a kit of hundreds of pieces that are integral to the kit. Everything you need is in this box. This is not true for the Hobbit box from GW as you need a whole host of peripheral items if you wish to use it as the manufacturer intends. I have no idea why people keep bringing up the Lego set as it has nothing to do with GW's release. Then again, if people want to clutch at straws for their desperate arguments I'll just go let them.

Don't forget the DzC scenery BTW!

What, he gets to make a pedantic remark about my post and I don't get to make one back?

Somebody else brought up the lego comparison, and I was simply showing how their price comparison was faulty when you examined the contents.