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.

Seems surprising... I assumed Brettonians were a pretty core faction for WHFB, but I could certainly be wrong.

Too bad dragons are worthless in WFB along with half of the unit types. They should start by fixing the game to make more types of armies viable. So many of the armies are barely playable..

 Krinsath wrote:

On-topic, I wouldn't mind a Kingdoms of Men book so much if that book was expanded to include good chunks Estalia and Tilea and not "Brettonians plus two more kits" kind of nonsense. Then we could have pseudo-French, Spanish AND Italians...

I don't follow fantasy much but adding in Tilea sounds like something (at least on the 40k side) that would be done with a $50 subcodex containing the equivalent of 3 print page of rules. They'd then repeat with the others for $50 each.

Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

There's a reason Mantic Games (with Ronnie Renton having been at GW for over a decade) decided to not make "normal" human miniatures for Kings of War, and stick with Ogres and Elves instead.

Humans don't sell (unless they're Space Marines).

There is no could be here. Do you have an figures on that? You are stating this as if its a fact.

Zweischneid wrote:

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Here it is again. You have added could be to the start of the sentence but this seems to be a rhetorical device more than a statement that you think you might be wrong. Espeically because you have added. Period at the end. Implying you are correct end of discussion. So it seems strange you would hide behind the words could be once someone asked you to back up your statement.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Imperial Guard.

Not really. Tanks sell (obviously). Not the dudes in fatigues.

Another statement? Figures on this one?

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).

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?

Do you know this for a fact? Do you have any sales figures to show that they lost money on 6th, 7th and 8th edition Empire?

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

 carlos13th wrote:

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

I am stating neither opinion nor fact.

I am hypothesizing that the rumour discussed here (for that is the purpose of this thread) is true, and provide speculative reasons for why a business-decision by GW in accordance with these rumours could be rational.

Inversely, people have claimed that the rumours are "impossible", most often on the reason that Empire is a good seller and/or that Brets would be, if given a proper "treatment" (for which the recent-Empire-treatment would be the closest available comparison). All, likewise,without numbers. If you make factual numbers a requirement, do so for everyone.

It's still a rumour in the end though, and it's not a rumour that would ultimately agree with my personal opinion if it came true.

However, trying to see things "from GW's side" has proven to be a good method for me to "judge" rumours, and the idea that GW is looking at Brets with sales-numbers for Empire isn't terribly far fetched (yes.. in my opinion).

 carlos13th wrote:

Do you know this for a fact? Do you have any sales figures to show that they lost money on 6th, 7th and 8th edition Empire?

Do you have any sales figures to show that they didn't lose money on 6th, 7th and 8th Edition Empire?

If not, my assumption - based on anecdotal evidence - is at least as good as yours. Let's call it 50/50 and see, which version would be better suited to explain the rumour discussed in this thread.

I haven't made an assumption. I haven't stated anything at all. I have no idea what sells and what doesn't over at GW, I don't pretend to.

You are stating opinions as if they are facts.You are making statements about what sells and what doesn't. They were not just hypothesis. If they were meant to be you worded them very badly.

 carlos13th wrote:
They were not just hypothesis. If they were meant to be you worded them very badly.

They weren't the hypotheses. The hypothesis was (is!) Bretonnians get rolled into the Empire army book.

Upon which an hypothesis was formed in the second or third post that Bretonnians would sell, if they'd get a "proper treatment", which I found to be an implausible one.

Context! Try reading it for a change.

So I state once again. Do you have any proof that humans dont sell? or are you making it up and stating it as fact.

Guys, I have it on GOOD FAITH that the Brets will now be squatted.

What's the scoop?

I just traded a full Skaven army for a full Brets army, that's why. XD

 carlos13th wrote:
So I state once again. Do you have any proof that humans dont sell? or are you making it up and stating it as fact.

Proof? No.

Evidence in support of an argument (short of definite proof, and not indisputable)? Yes. As presented in my previous posts.


Do you have definite proof contradicting my evidence? Or can we continue to discuss GW-practices like the rest of the internet on the basis of obviously always imperfect information about GW's business accounts, without mentioning this in every single post.

So you are going for.

You don't have any evidence against what I am saying thus I am right?

In that case next month they are releasing a unicorn army.

 carlos13th wrote:
So you are going for.

You don't have any evidence against what I am saying thus I am right?

In that case next month they are releasing a unicorn army.

There is plenty of evidence against what I am saying (as well as in support of what I am saying). There just isn't any proof one way or another.

These are two different things.

We were all having a fine and civilized conversation on the basis of evidence, before you started to raise the benchmark to proof for one side of the argument (but not the other).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

Or are you just stating opinion as fact then hiding behind the words "could be" when called on it?

I am stating neither opinion nor fact.

I am hypothesizing that the rumour discussed here (for that is the purpose of this thread) is true, ....

Given who it's from, that's a pretty daft starting point. With anything you read on Natfka, the zero hypothesis should be that they are wrong, since most of them are. If you can't find any evidence that contradicts that, you should continue assuming they are wrong.

Da krimson barun wrote:

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Just saw over on Natfka that the Britonians might be getting squated into a "Kingdoms of men" book. /sigh
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/01/bretonnians-getting-rolled-into-empire.html?m=1

Well the name is definatley wrong.They already have a book called kingdoms of men for gondor/Rohan.It would be confusing to have another.

Well GW are not afraid to reuse names between systems

forge world karybdis = Big Uberdroppod thingy

GW Dark Elf karybdid = scaly monster thingy

Avian wrote:

Given who it's from, that's a pretty daft starting point. With anything you read on Natfka, the zero hypothesis should be that they are wrong, since most of them are. If you can't find any evidence that contradicts that, you should continue assuming they are wrong.

I don't. Because the rumour makes a lot of sense, given the evidence (not proof) I previously presented. It's sufficient for me to reject the natfka-is-wrong-null-hypothesis and assume that the rumour is correct (as far as "Brets-aren't-viable-enough-for-an-update", not necessarily the specifics of how the future book may or may not look like).

If you doubt my inference, I'm willing to bet you a year of DCM.

It's all fairly irrelevant anyway if the rumour

Fantasy is being rebooted with 3 big (?) multi-race army books for the next edition

is to be belived

By 'the treatment' do you mean, to quote Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, the 'KY treatment'?

This would be a shame. I wouldn't mind seeing some updated medieval knights. For some reason GW Bret range is the only thing close to nice looking medieval knights.

Considering Nafka on Faeit has less than a 50% accuracy rate currently on rumors, I'm not putting much stock in this.

Considering GW has been keeping all of their armies around (Sisters at least got a Digital codex, so not squatted), and GW wouldn't miss a chance to sell yet another book.

Sure, Fantasy hasn't had much attention lately, but they've also sunk quite a bit into plastic production for fantasy armies, and brets just recently had a majority of the army redone in pretty nice plastics - knights, men-at-arms, arches, pegasus, etc., there would be no reason to squat them. All the work is done aside from coming up with a couple new big models to add to the army book.

And GW going to a 3-book warhammer armies series is quite far-fetched, unless they were selling them for $200 each. I'm sure they'll continue to flog 16 different $50 army books.

@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Empire historically has been a big seller for GW. Popular enough that GW was willing to put in the investment to make them the first all-plastic army which didn't depend on starter sets (as opposed to low selling armies like WE and Brets which get the bare minimum number of plastic sets, and no updates). The current book made the biggest money maker among new players - infantry - a bad choice. The big griffon model was also a bad choice. That's why the army isn't a big seller now - the average army can have a similar number of models to the average current WoC army.

Balance wrote:Seems surprising... I assumed Brettonians were a pretty core faction for WHFB, but I could certainly be wrong.

Bretonnia is fun. I like Bretonnia. Aside from the 'foreign' races like lizardmen and tomb kings, Bretonnia is as non-core to the story as anything (tie with a bunch of races). I don't give this rumour any credence because I think GW is more likely to just ignore an army indefinitely than to squat an army, but Bretonnia is far from core to the game.

decker_cky wrote:
@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Quite the opposite. I am arguing that Empire doesn't sell, never did, and certainly wasn't helped by the massive investments, so Bretonnians in all likelihood won't sell either (e.g. GW's - as far as I can tell - losing money with Empire, why would they want another one?)

Admittedly, all "fantasy humans" was a bad way to put it. Warriors of Chaos, as noted, are very popular.

decker_cky wrote:


The current book made the biggest money maker among new players - infantry - a bad choice. The big griffon model was also a bad choice.

Infantry was a bad choice? Big Griffon was a bad choice? Seems like you've got the Empire covered from one extreme to the other. Let's just simplify it to "Empire was a bad choice".

As said, companies with the advantage of hindsight (e.g. Mantic Games around ex-GW staff) stayed the hell away from it, because no matter what models you do and what you try with the rules (and Kings of War is an excellent set of rules), if you stick to that basic faux-historic "archetype", you'll probably be losing money.

Mantic have never said humans don't sell. They've been quite clear that they won't make the generic humans since there's so much competition on the market. If they 'knew' that fantasy humans didn't sell, then why did they make an entirely new fantasy human army? Doesn't that kind of ruin that entire branch of your argument.

Did Ronnie really fall and hit his head in the last week of the kickstarter campaign and forget that humans don't sell?

I've heard from local district managers a few years back, and seen the opinion from other regions posted that Empire has generally always been a very popular army. This thread is actually the first place I've ever seen it suggested that Empire wasn't a good seller. The eyeball test both from areas I've gamed, and from thinking back to the number of empire armies I've seen in various tournament results doesn't seem to suggest they're an unpopular armies. From all that information, I'd probably rank Empire as a top 5 army in terms of popularity.

 Zweischneid wrote:
It's sufficient for me to reject the natfka-is-wrong-null-hypothesis and assume that the rumour is correct (as far as "Brets-aren't-viable-enough-for-an-update", not necessarily the specifics of how the future book may or may not look like).

If you doubt my inference, I'm willing to bet you a year of DCM.

You are willing to trust a combination of your gut and Natfka?

What exactly would we be betting on? And what is a DCM anyway?

This seems like it's drawing on the old rumor of all the armies being condensed into larger books divided by loyalties and alliances etc.

part of the problem with fantasy i think is that the look of the models is getting worse instead of better.

a good example:

this



to this:



all the random detailing doesnt mesh well together IMO. some of the detailing just looks dumb. they are skeletons that use skeleton bones to add details to themselves? ok.........

also many of the big dumb overdone new plastic kits are laughably bad and ridiculous looking. maybe some people enjoy that look, personally, i hate it.

another example

old model:



new

To the poster above, I must question your model taste for the first set of images, and the second in the second set of images has had a head swap, which does indeed make it awful. Here's the proper model, which looks better:



OT, I'm surprised that Bretonnians would get "the Black Templar" treatment. BT were basically like Siam-Hann or Biel-Tan are for Eldar, Bretonnia are a completely different army with different history, units and playstyle. Yes, they're both human armies, but they're no similar to Empire than High Elves are to Wood Elves.

 The Shadow wrote:
To the poster above, I must question your model taste for the first set of images, and the second in the second set of images has had a head swap, which does indeed make it awful. Here's the proper model, which looks better:



OT, I'm surprised that Bretonnians would get "the Black Templar" treatment. BT were basically like Siam-Hann or Biel-Tan are for Eldar, Bretonnia are a completely different army with different history, units and playstyle. Yes, they're both human armies, but they're no similar to Empire than High Elves are to Wood Elves.

he doesn't wear armour on his upper body, just bondage straps? we are all very impressed that he can turn his right arm into a bat wing.

that model looks not good. i wont say terrible, but definitely not good.

With no disrespect to the OP, this "rumor" sounds like complete junk. When models disappear from the online store, it's a sign that the kits are being redone, not that the army is getting squatted. Plus, the Empire received a new book somewhat recently, which means they're not due for an update anytime soon.

 Zweischneid wrote:

decker_cky wrote:
@Zweischneid: Are you really arguing that because bretonnians don't sell, fantasy humans don't sell (eg, bretonnia doesn't sell so empire is unpopular)?

Quite the opposite. I am arguing that Empire doesn't sell, never did, and certainly wasn't helped by the massive investments, so Bretonnians in all likelihood won't sell either (e.g. GW's - as far as I can tell - losing money with Empire, why would they want another one?)

Admittedly, all "fantasy humans" was a bad way to put it. Warriors of Chaos, as noted, are very popular.

Huh, I didn't realize that my first Warhammer army wasn't Empire. How could I have bought it if it didn't sell? Stupid sarcasm aside, GW's own actions suggest how wonderful of a seller Empire was-it was the first fantasy army to be made entirely of plastic. Back in 7th, every model except named characters were plastic. That was unheard of for every other fantasy army out there. Orcs and Goblins were the next closest, I believe, and even they had a ton of metal-to-finecast stuff. GW's own actions prove you wrong Zweisch. Just admit it. You're the only guy railing on here that humans don't sell well. Empire was also the mostly widely owned army in my old hometown which had a VERY small Warhammer following. There were 5 or 6 of us who played Empire. Almost 50% of our player base had an Empire army. Sure, that's a small sample: very small. But it goes against what you suggest. As does GW's treatment of the Empire line. As does almost, if not every, other poster in this thread. If you're arguing that EVERYONE else is wrong because they disagree with you...it's a sure bet who is actually making the mistake.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What exactly could they release for their human fantasy armies that a) isn't "meh" as you say it, b) isn't covered by Perry Miniatures and c) adds something relevant to the game. Not to mention doing it twice for two near-identical armies in the case of Brets and Empire?

Here's one for starters: a regiment of apprentice wizards from the College of Magic.

decker_cky wrote:
Mantic have never said humans don't sell. They've been quite clear that they won't make the generic humans since there's so much competition on the market.

And yet they did anyway. And they were absolute gak.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Avian wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bretonnians might get better sales if they had an army book that was newer than 10 years old.

Maybe. But Empire did get a new Army Book, all kinds of fancy new kits, including the humongous Karl Franz guy (probably GW's biggest big-kit-flop yet), fancy cavalry, wizards, etc. and isn't selling either.

Could it be:
1) The Core models are either old or ugly, or both
2) The Core models keep getting more expensive, both in terms of money AND points
3) Optimum unit sizes for Core has now gone up.
4) All of the above

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Imperial Guard.

Not really. Tanks sell (obviously). Not the dudes in fatigues.

You are hugely mistaken, the catachan ig models (which I personally dont like) were a huge sales success and made a ton of money for GW.