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.

 azreal13 wrote:
...my bryllcreamed hair...

Dude. Phrasing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know why you're bothering Az. Dude's never going to admit even the slightest defeat, however trivial.

I base my opinions on fact and am more than happy to admit when I am wrong - as I did about 3 posts above the one I am quoting now.

 Breotan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
...my bryllcreamed hair...

Dude. Phrasing.

Dude. Deliberate reference.

Ignoring very basic maths in favour of back-slapping and in-jokes? Figures.

I'm out. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis of GW's finances, ClockworkZion did one somewhere. I'm sure if you pm him he'll have a link.

Apart from the bit that I used maths to prove you wrong, then where you tried to mitigate your error by using my information in place of your own?

xruslanx wrote:
You implied that gw/kirby was somehow sneaking profit out from the backs of the shareholders, or that they are hiding profits somehow. The fact that you made a joke out of it doesn't make you any less wrong.

I think you're sense of humour is broken. Stop being so damned literal. Even the most average joey would understand that joke, so why can't you?

Just spotted this, then I'll stop kicking the puppy...

xruslanx wrote:

Tell you what - I'll admit that your golden toilet seat joke was the funniest thing I've ever read in my life, if you admit that my statistical analysis above was correct and that gw make, on average, £4.50 profit on a £30 box.

Right, I'll admit it, happily.

Know why? Because you claimed that they made £2 on £28 initially. I said you were wrong and was nearer £3.50, using some very rough and ready mental arithmetic. You now are insisting I accept your assertion that you are actually more wrong than I originally thought.

I hope you have many happy hours laughing at a comment I only included to try and make my post slightly more amusing to read.

 azreal13 wrote:
Just spotted this, then I'll stop kicking the puppy...

xruslanx wrote:

Tell you what - I'll admit that your golden toilet seat joke was the funniest thing I've ever read in my life, if you admit that my statistical analysis above was correct and that gw make, on average, £4.50 profit on a £30 box.

Right, I'll admit it, happily.

Know why? Because you claimed that they made £2 on £28 initially. I said you were wrong and was nearer £3.50, using some very rough and ready mental arithmetic. You now are insisting I accept your assertion that you are actually more wrong than I originally thought.

I hope you have many happy hours laughing at a comment I only included to try and make my post slightly more amusing to read.

£2.50 was wrong yes, I admitted that earlier. Clearly I miss-remembered.

Just to clarify, my original post about GW making £2.50 profit off a £30 kit, was intended to demonstrate to a poster the insignificance of material costs in light manufacturing. I know that the number was wrong (and I clarified it further since I don't have access to GW's profit/loss statements on my phone in the canteen at work) which is why I clarified it later. My point was still solid though - the fact that plastic only cost a few pennies is irrelevent really. £2.50 was undoubtedly closer to the reality than the £27 supposed by the poster I was replying to.

 azreal13 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know why you're bothering Az. Dude's never going to admit even the slightest defeat, however trivial.

I think the victory here is obvious to everyone else, I don't need or require an admission of defeat.

I will just cooly swipe a comb through my bryllcreamed hair, stare into the middle distance and let my points testify for themselves.

Oh, it is Bryl back? The guy nobody missed when he left? There goes the neighborhood. Again...

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Just spotted this, then I'll stop kicking the puppy...

xruslanx wrote:

Tell you what - I'll admit that your golden toilet seat joke was the funniest thing I've ever read in my life, if you admit that my statistical analysis above was correct and that gw make, on average, £4.50 profit on a £30 box.

Right, I'll admit it, happily.

Know why? Because you claimed that they made £2 on £28 initially. I said you were wrong and was nearer £3.50, using some very rough and ready mental arithmetic. You now are insisting I accept your assertion that you are actually more wrong than I originally thought.

I hope you have many happy hours laughing at a comment I only included to try and make my post slightly more amusing to read.

£2.50 was wrong yes, I admitted that earlier. Clearly I miss-remembered.

Just to clarify, my original post about GW making £2.50 profit off a £30 kit, was intended to demonstrate to a poster the insignificance of material costs in light manufacturing. I know that the number was wrong (and I clarified it further since I don't have access to GW's profit/loss statements on my phone in the canteen at work) which is why I clarified it later. My point was still solid though - the fact that plastic only cost a few pennies is irrelevent really. £2.50 was undoubtedly closer to the reality than the £27 supposed by the poster I was replying to.

Depends if you're talking gross or net profit.

Gross profit on the same £30 kit would be, using thumbnail numbers, ~£19, that's using a percentage calculated from GW's own "cost of doing business" figures from the last report, which factors in all expenses getting product on to the shelf, from purchase of raw materials to design and machining to logistics of delivery, but no further costs (rent, rates, utilities, wages etc) which is perhaps more what the poster you were responding to meant (and you took them a little too literally)

I believe the heavy dependence on their own stores is flaw in their approach, but it is one that they are now pretty much lumbered with.

 Breotan wrote:
But later, GW puts together a "Big Box Mart" deal at a decent enough discount and suddenly... wait for it... GW is gouging their customers. Some people will complain about anything on this site.

I'm not even saying it isn't a good discount, all I was saying is that going into a store and getting a big box of models for $90 was a much more attractive deal than going into the same store and not walking out with a big box of models unless you're willing to drop close to $200, which is considerably more expensive. I didn't say GW was "gouging their customers", but I think it's pretty obvious that GW doesn't want you to leave without dropping quite a bit of money on product before you do, and I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing out that they're asking for a lot of money and that this may be more than a little off-putting to new players, who are undoubtedly the ones these big boxes are aimed at in the first place.

Hell, even back when I got my Tau battleforce, the $90 price tag was fething scary, and the Tau battleforce was one of the few that was actually well-designed and sorta gave you a legal "army" with it. I had barely been out on my own for a year at that point and $100 was a lot to spend in one go on anything, especially a bunch of unpainted plastic toys. Thankfully I got a 10% discount for some reason, and the Tau codex at the time was only $20 if I remember right, so I felt a lot better in the end knowing that for a little over $100 i was off to a pretty good start on my first 40k army, and I actually felt like this is something I could get into. Honestly, if battleforces had been $200 back then, and I knew I still had to blow $50 just on my army's rules on top of that, I doubt I would have bought into the game at all. Prices were much more reasonable back in 2006 and even back then I had to defend every purchase I made because my parents criticized me for spending so much. And I can imagine a lot of people now looking at the $170 Tyranid swarm box and saying "feth that!", no matter how many models come in the box (actually I don't' have to imagine, I've seen that happen before several times...here recently I watched a couple people look interestingly at the 40k product wall, then laugh their asses off at the $160 Lord of Skulls and never look at 40k again). In fact I think if you took the time to explain to that potential Tyranid player how much money they were saving with the $200 box they'd probably be even more put-off, and decide that there was no way they could actually afford 40k in the long run, especially when they see $80 and $70 price tags on all the other units they still need to buy.

So yeah, these new megaforce-style boxes are technically good deals (I guess, I wouldn't buy a Tyranid swarm unless I knew someone who would trade me 40 termagants for the 40 useless hormagaunts, and the SM strike force has so much chaff it isn't worth it no matter how big the discount is), but they don't really fix GW's number one problem: sticker shock. If anything they're only making it worse.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:
having seen the Tyranid Swarm box contents vin White Dwarf, if looks like they may be getting back into battleforces...that could, of course, just be limited edition.

It's not limited edition.

The "Battleforces" are being replaced with boxes equivalent to "Megaforces".

Are they? I was under the impression that the four released at Christmas were limited releases. No idea about the others (except the SM one which seems to be a permanent offering).

The Space Marine Strike Force is a permanent offering and from what I've been told, the Warhost of Naggaroth is not going anywhere.

The Christmas releases were tied to dataslates/scrolls. None were "legal" forces(an HQ/Hero or Lord and 2x Troops) in and of themselves like the Warhost and Strike Force are. The Swarm follows that pattern, with the box having a Carnifex(which as we all know has parts that can be used to represent Old One Eye, who seems to be an HQ).

Bit late with my reply here, didn't mean to just chuck a grenade and duck. Yeah, I get that the gak's overpriced. I just don't think "choosing to buy something expensive" is the same thing as "being tricked into buying something expensive". If I had mega buyer's remorse, or the product were somehow not as described, then sure. But I don't, and it is. (Surgeon general's warning: YMMV. Some of the new books are definitely a let-down. Consuming GW products may lead to low birth weight and/or destruction of everything good, pure and true)

And oh god, the white knight thing again. Because THAT doesn't get tiring. I'll admit that the original point I replied to was generally trying to say little kids ("new players") are the targets of GW'S BUYER DECEIT and for that, yes, maybe, in that they're little kids and probably don't appreciate the mine field they're getting in to. It wasn't desperately fair for me, as a reasonably wealthy adult, to make myself the target of that to refute it. Sorry?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timetowaste: You're a white knight Bull0 and you should feel bad, I've decided you enjoy playing 6th edition and can't fathom why, I like modelling, I'm rambling but I'm tired, tl;dr whitest of white knights on a white horse going to the isle of wight to eat white bread etc /paraphrase

I am about 90% in 40k for the painting and modelling. I've played like, 4 competitive games in my life, I mostly play at home with my friends and it's all pretty loose. I don't have much of any opinion on 6th vs 5th, I quite liked the introduction of the random elements like warlord traits and mysterious objectives, etc. I don't like hull points. There you go, I do have an opinion. Whaddya know.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Stores are lucky to have the 100$ battalion sold to a rich teen once in a while, esp. around Xmas.
But 200$ is way beyond the reach of teens even around Xmas.
Only positive thing: customers learn from the start, that only rich fanatics are supported, not children, teens or casual gamers.

Oh please. Enough of this damn nonsense.

Agreed. "Rich teen" my butt, I spent much more than that on airsoft in my teens. I had a job. I made 700 dollars a month as a register monkey at a grocery store part time.

I'm certainly not rich by any means now and I've managed to build two 2,000 point forces over the span of four months.

Could the models be cheaper? Certainly. Are they prohibitively expensive? A little. Is it impossible for the average guy to build respectable forces without branking the bank? Absolutely.

I've got a few large armies myself on a 24k salary. Hardly rich.

I have a 25$ a week allowance I let myself take. Twice a month I get a new box of something. It works.

 robam45 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Stores are lucky to have the 100$ battalion sold to a rich teen once in a while, esp. around Xmas.
But 200$ is way beyond the reach of teens even around Xmas.
Only positive thing: customers learn from the start, that only rich fanatics are supported, not children, teens or casual gamers.

Oh please. Enough of this damn nonsense.

Agreed. "Rich teen" my butt, I spent much more than that on airsoft in my teens. I had a job. I made 700 dollars a month as a register monkey at a grocery store part time.

I'm certainly not rich by any means now and I've managed to build two 2,000 point forces over the span of four months.

Could the models be cheaper? Certainly. Are they prohibitively expensive? A little. Is it impossible for the average guy to build respectable forces without branking the bank? Absolutely.

There's a difference between "GW products charge a premium that competing companies do not", and "GW products are too expensive for anyone who is not wealthy to afford". But if people enjoy lumping a year's worth of purchases in one and claiming that teens/kids can't afford 40k because a 2000 point army costs £1bn or whatever, then let them.

When I was unemployed I could easily afford enough 40k to keep up with my painting speed. Even if I was quick and painted a box of troops a week, that's only £23 for a week's worth of painting. Though I find that prices tend to be a bit silly when you move out of the Troops section, Land Raiders are crazy expensive, as are the new plastic characters. But most people won't be painting a Land Raider every week, these "big ticket" items usually aren't required in large numbers.

xruslanx wrote:

 robam45 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Stores are lucky to have the 100$ battalion sold to a rich teen once in a while, esp. around Xmas.
But 200$ is way beyond the reach of teens even around Xmas.
Only positive thing: customers learn from the start, that only rich fanatics are supported, not children, teens or casual gamers.

Oh please. Enough of this damn nonsense.

Agreed. "Rich teen" my butt, I spent much more than that on airsoft in my teens. I had a job. I made 700 dollars a month as a register monkey at a grocery store part time.

I'm certainly not rich by any means now and I've managed to build two 2,000 point forces over the span of four months.

Could the models be cheaper? Certainly. Are they prohibitively expensive? A little. Is it impossible for the average guy to build respectable forces without branking the bank? Absolutely.

There's a difference between "GW products charge a premium that competing companies do not", and "GW products are too expensive for anyone who is not wealthy to afford". But if people enjoy lumping a year's worth of purchases in one and claiming that teens/kids can't afford 40k because a 2000 point army costs £1bn or whatever, then let them.

When I was unemployed I could easily afford enough 40k to keep up with my painting speed. Even if I was quick and painted a box of troops a week, that's only £23 for a week's worth of painting. Though I find that prices tend to be a bit silly when you move out of the Troops section, Land Raiders are crazy expensive, as are the new plastic characters. But most people won't be painting a Land Raider every week, these "big ticket" items usually aren't required in large numbers.

That's all well and good but you're still comparing GW to any other form of entertainment you could be spending that money on, once you narrow the comparison to the tabletop wargaming/model painting hobby £23 for ten models is still quite a lot.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's all well and good but you're still comparing GW to any other form of entertainment you could be spending that money on, once you narrow the comparison to the tabletop wargaming/model painting hobby £23 for ten models is still quite a lot.

Since we're back to this debate, I'll reiterate that Malifaux and Warmahordes models can be (model for model) as expensive as GW models, sometimes even more so let's not pretend that it is just GW that is doing this.

Maybe the battalions and battle forces are going to be only available online.

bleumike wrote:
Maybe the battalions and battle forces are going to be only available online.

Hard to say, but the FLGS that I go to is going to be able to get the Tyranid Swarm (basically, a battle force). Of course, it could only be that way for a short while and then go to online only.

 Rayvon wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Stores are lucky to have the 100$ battalion sold to a rich teen once in a while, esp. around Xmas.
But 200$ is way beyond the reach of teens even around Xmas.
Only positive thing: customers learn from the start, that only rich fanatics are supported, not children, teens or casual gamers.

In the UK teens are regularly bought hundreds of pounds worth of stuff at birthdays and christmas by their parents, and thats not even the rich ones, I should not imagine it being that different elsewhere.

I think you and I have different definitions of "not rich". Even some families which are ostensibly part of the middle class in this country are having to turn to food banks to feed themselves, the idea that there are armies of parents out there willing to drop several hundred quid on toy soldiers is laughable.

 Breotan wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's all well and good but you're still comparing GW to any other form of entertainment you could be spending that money on, once you narrow the comparison to the tabletop wargaming/model painting hobby £23 for ten models is still quite a lot.

Since we're back to this debate, I'll reiterate that Malifaux and Warmahordes models can be (model for model) as expensive as GW models, sometimes even more so let's not pretend that it is just GW that is doing this.

Spurious comparison. I've often bought models that were much more expensive than GW minis when you compare single-miniature to single-miniature, but those were either A; of FAR superior quality, B; rare, limited edition, or OOP ebay purchases, or C; for game systems that require a fraction of the investment. Comparing "model for model" isn't a fair or accurate comparison when one of the systems in question requires substantially larger numbers of those models to even have a playable army, let alone a force big enough to play average sized games at clubs and stores.

 Breotan wrote:
Since we're back to this debate, I'll reiterate that Malifaux and Warmahordes models can be (model for model) as expensive as GW models, sometimes even more so let's not pretend that it is just GW that is doing this.

Let us also not pretend that you need anywhere near as many Malifaux or Warmahordes minis to make a full army, unlike 40K and especially WFB.

People will pay what they are willing to pay for anything if they want it enough.
To all the complainers out there if you don't like the price don't buy it go elsewhere play a different game you will not change the minds of the people that will pay $200 for a box of plastic.

To the players that are willing to pay the money for a $200 box of plastic you won't change the minds of the complainers.

Why don't we get back on topic and that topic is Battalions and Battle forces going away I don't see all of them going away tomorrow or any time soon just as the Army Codex's get redone the box for that army will get retired and a larger starter box gets put out.

 sonofruss wrote:
People will pay what they are willing to pay for anything if they want it enough.
To all the complainers out there if you don't like the price don't buy it go elsewhere play a different game you will not change the minds of the people that will pay $200 for a box of plastic.

To the players that are willing to pay the money for a $200 box of plastic you won't change the minds of the complainers.

Yes, that's kind of stating the obvious. But people it's not going to stop people complaining and it's not going to stop people defending. The complainers complain because while they might still be willing to pay that money, they might not be happy about it. The defenders will continue to defend, I dunno why, I'm not a psychologist

The games play through faster these days with entire units dying having never moved.
At least with one of these larger bundles it'll be a fun game for the beginner.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
The games play through faster these days with entire units dying having never moved.
At least with one of these larger bundles it'll be a fun game for the beginner.

Until the beginner tries to paint 80 gaunts and realises the hole they've gotten themselves in to

Or assemble their horrible split down the middle heads.
I'm glad I've only got to paint the new bits for the nid release.
:Shudder:

xruslanx wrote:
, that's only £23 for a week's worth of painting.

Only £23 for a week? Seems quite a lot to me.

I'm impressed that you managed to find £23 a week to fritter away on miniatures whilst unemployed. I was briefly on Jobseekers once for about a month and I did not have any spare money whatsoever.

 sonofruss wrote:
Why don't we get back on topic and that topic is Battalions and Battle forces going away I don't see all of them going away tomorrow or any time soon just as the Army Codex's get redone the box for that army will get retired and a larger starter box gets put out.

Imagine that a company put out a boxed set that collected several boxed sets together, yet provided no bulk discount, special artwork, special items, or any real incentive at all for the customer to buy it. If that sort of boxed set disappeared, Who would care if such a boxed set disappeared?