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.

50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

Wow, they are expensive. But at the same time they look gorgeous. I'm really desperate to see what GW does with LOTR/Hobbit, I love the miniatures. I'll admit I'm not well versed in many other gaming systems outside of GW, but the LOTR/Hobbit models have got to be my favourite models of anything I can think of at the moment.

GW are trying their best to price me out, but if they can produce miniatures that I really want to paint, it's worth the price premium to me.

I think GW have an absolute gold mine in the Middle Earth IP, but they seem more interested in putting in minimal effort to bleed people rather than turning it in to the game it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, if GW expand the Elf and Dwarf models enough, I think I'll start a LOTR based Warhammer Fantasy Dwarf and/or Elf army.

They are nice only because the proportions are not 'heroic scale'. Take a look at the faces on the elves, they look like really old, angry men as opposed to, well elves.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

Perry Miniatures released 12 Knights for £18.00, same quality, probably same sculptors:
http://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_62&products_id=2713


The recent 4 months look like GW is testing if the market is accepting a 50% price increase across the board.

I went into the local GW for the first time in a long time yesterday, and spoke to the new manager for the first time.

We spoke briefly about the Hobbit, rather than simply state that it looks rubbish and I understood it was selling badly, I phrased my opinion as "it probably needs the next film/s to give more of a battle platform for the game" to which he agreed. I followed this up with "it could really use one of those multi part magazines like last time" to which he began to nod his head vigorously.

I think that is the closest you'll get to an actual admission from a GW employee that things aren't selling well.

He also believed that upcoming releases consisted of "just a few character models" so no big headline kit to change our minds.

 jonolikespie wrote:
They are nice only because the proportions are not 'heroic scale'. Take a look at the faces on the elves, they look like really old, angry men as opposed to, well elves.

Faces are a hard thing to tell from painted miniatures. Once painted, they look more like the paint than the sculpt. I got some older LOTR characters for free when one of my orders from GW was lost, they looked like they had terrible faces in their pictures online, but when I got them they looked awesome. The painted models had completely different expressions and were over exaggerated, the actual sculpts themselves looked quite natural and realistic.

But yeah, I won't deny that the 2 main reasons I like them are....

1) Not hero scale.

2) LOTR styling.

3) I like the way they did the cloth/capes/armour.

LOTR is that perfect mix of fantasy while still looking realistic to me. I'm not in to the anime style miniatures or the cartoon style miniatures or for the most part, historics (depends on which historics, of course). LOTR just nails the style for me.

My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

Because as we've been over time and time and time and time and time again...

GW's prices are inflated for many reasons, chief among which is because they maintain retail chains.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

And GW themselves produced models much cheaper throughout their history.

This thread doesn't necessarily suggest that there aren't half as many people who would pay the price, it just suggest The Hobbit box set is not appealing. The Moria box set was appealing to me because it included a decent quality Fellowship and the start of Moria force. The Hobbit, the Dwarves are appealing to me, but the goblins and the goblin town scenery, meh, not so much. If The Hobbit starter set included Orcs and Dwarves from the flashback battles or these Knights of Rivendell along with Warg Riders or whatever, I'd be much more inclined to buy it, even if the price per model was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I love how those Dwarves use a map of Australia as their shield, lol.

They aren't bad models, but I still prefer the GW Grim Hammers and at the end of the day that's what I care about. Not "can I buy 12 dwarves cheaper", it's "can I find 12 dwarves I'd equally like to own/paint for less".

Kanluwen wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:


Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

Because as we've been over time and time and time and time and time again...

GW's prices are inflated for many reasons, chief among which is because they maintain retail chains.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:


Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

And GW themselves produced models much cheaper throughout their history.

This thread doesn't necessarily suggest that there aren't half as many people who would pay the price, it just suggest The Hobbit box set is not appealing. The Moria box set was appealing to me because it included a decent quality Fellowship and the start of Moria force. The Hobbit, the Dwarves are appealing to me, but the goblins and the goblin town scenery, meh, not so much. If The Hobbit starter set included Orcs and Dwarves from the flashback battles or these Knights of Rivendell along with Warg Riders or whatever, I'd be much more inclined to buy it, even if the price per model was the same.

Also, I love how those Dwarves use a map of Australia as their shield, lol.

They aren't bad models, but I still prefer the GW Grim Hammers and at the end of the day that's what I care about. Not "can I buy 12 dwarves cheaper", it's "can I find 12 dwarves I'd equally like to own/paint for less".

I apologize, my question was meant to be rhetorical.

The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

You'd be wrong. Running and maintaining their extensive retail chain (and all the infrastructure that goes along with it) is GW's number one cost. No other table top miniature company has anything similar in terms of cost.

 azreal13 wrote:


I think that is the closest you'll get to an actual admission from a GW employee that things aren't selling well.

Weird- Hobbit/LotR is always selling at my local GW (also UK). At one point before christmas they sold out of the Hobbit starter box.

Zoned wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

You'd be wrong. Running and maintaining their extensive retail chain (and all the infrastructure that goes along with it) is GW's number one cost. No other table top miniature company has anything similar in terms of cost.

Really, well in that case GW is run by a bunch of idiots who have no idea how to run a business. You need to separate the retail from the rest of the business. If a retail store can't run a profit off the percentage they get off the cost of the goods from distributor prices (apparently 45% of RRP) then you need to close the store, which GW have shown they are quite willing to do. In order for the retail side of things to actually cause a net loss it would require them to be run worse than your average FLGS, which seem to be (on the whole) able to make a profit off of the margins they get from their distributors. Now I may think that what GW are doing will cost them in the long run (in terms of keeping profits up at the cost of diminishing market share), I don't think they are as stupid as you require for your theory to hold water.

I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

Zoned wrote:
I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

But these aren't libraries, they y'know sell stuff and stuff. They should be making money not costing money.

Zoned wrote:
I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

But this cost should be covered by the sales (i.e. the 45% of RRP) that those stores make, if it isn't then they should just drop them and distribute. While that may be there number one gross cost(i.e. before you count the sales), it should generate a net profit. So either GW management are drunk at the helm, or your excuse for their prices is just wrong.

Backfire wrote:

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

First of all, I consider PP to be even more obscenely expensive on their "plastic" unit boxes. I generally don't buy their stuff.

Second, each PP cavalryman could probably devour the Rivendale horsemen whole. And the horses they rode in on.

Third, PP has a more distinctive style than GW's LOTR line, so you don't have the feeling you're buying outrageously marked-up historical models with funny hats.

Therefore, the higher price tag on PP's stuff is still terrible, but less remarkable.

I don't think you can apply the Trade Account discount to actual GW stores and try to figure the profit they make this way. The reason is because the Trade Account team is perhaps a dozen staff servicing all of North America. So the profit margins are higher since the cost of running that department is vastly lower.

Nevertheless, I do understand your point better now and I do agree there is some validity there.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

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

That game is still stacked a couple layers deep in stores around here.

Relapse wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

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

That game is still stacked a couple layers deep in stores around here.

FLGS though right? They no longer exist in GW stores, the red/black/local colour here shirts were apparenty told to smash em and drop em in a dumpster well away from their stores.

I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Backfire wrote:

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

First of all, I consider PP to be even more obscenely expensive on their "plastic" unit boxes. I generally don't buy their stuff.

Second, each PP cavalryman could probably devour the Rivendale horsemen whole. And the horses they rode in on.

Third, PP has a more distinctive style than GW's LOTR line, so you don't have the feeling you're buying outrageously marked-up historical models with funny hats.

Therefore, the higher price tag on PP's stuff is still terrible, but less remarkable.

Also. those 5 cavalry will cost 10-12 points, where an average evening's game will be with 35-50pt armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

In case of "limited edition" boxed games, it would be terribly bad business practice to sell them in bargain bin, or letting them rot in shelves years and years, since people buy "limited edition" assuming certain scarcity.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

In case of "limited edition" boxed games, it would be terribly bad business practice to sell them in bargain bin, or letting them rot in shelves years and years, since people buy "limited edition" assuming certain scarcity.

Did any of the package actually state it was an LE though? As far as I can tell, the only way anyone could tell it was limited was GWs website having the hourglass graphic on it.

I don't believe it did, no. There's still a couple copies at the local store and the Hobby Town around here, so I've seen it enough times by now that I should know.