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.

Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruberu wrote:
I would probably start a new army if they stopped lowering the model count and increasing the price tag. The Cadians are my example. I love IG and want more, but $29 for a box of ten that used to cost $35 for a box of 20ish is outrageous. Plus the pay to win aspect of it, I dont want to have to buy a AA unit to take out a flyer that almost every army has now, Maybe make my pintle mounted gun on my Russ AA.

Plus the codex change to much and their price. I have a German army in FoW and am on my second book. First book cost me 20, second cost me 20. I've had 4 space marine books now, first 15, then 20, then 25ish, then 30ish and now its going to cost me 60ish when a hard cover comes out.

When they first changed the box we found out is was the same price due to the heavy weapon. It was 16 for $35 and then you had to add on 2 heavies for $17 a piece. That comes to $29 per unit (well, 29.50 a unit so I guess you save a $1 with the new structure if you buy 2 units). I think what you are looking at is that you want more satisfaction from your purchases. What could GW offer in their boxes to increase your satisfaction? GW should try to balance that with their pricing structure.

They could start by offering a way to get a decent beginner army without spending $400 or more. I don't mind paying for big bad additional units, but the initial cost to get beyond a bare minimum demo game 1 HQ and 2 Troops is astronomical and has totally soured me on even bothering, because I don't want to fork out that much money just to get the bare minimum that other people at the store will play.

Offer me a boxed army for under $200 that has a 750-1000 point army with a good selection of units to make a well-rounded force, and throw in the codex for free. Something like the Space Marine Strikeforce boxed set but about $50 cheaper and maybe with a little better selection. I'd be much more likely to collect an army (or in my case even bother to play) if I could get a starting force for $175 or so and have enough to play entry-level points games while fleshing out the list.

Well, I'm late to the party.

First off, they would need to reduce the size of the game. I want to be able to manuever and not just pack the board with models. That means increasing points per model and using fewer models.

Reducing the size of the game would also reduce the start-up costs.

Two, they need to completely redo the turn sequence. IGOUGO is old and outdated. Plus, it is boring. This needs to change to alternate activation at the minimum.

Three, they need to actually start making games again. I want to explore the 40K and Fantasy universe and the main battle games are not the only/best way to do that,

 Easy E wrote:
Well, I'm late to the party.

First off, they would need to reduce the size of the game. I want to be able to manuever and not just pack the board with models. That means increasing points per model and using fewer models.

Reducing the size of the game would also reduce the start-up costs.

This one always confuses me. The players drive the size of games (beyond the lesser effect of in-game unit minimum points costs), I'm not sure of where GW states the game is for X points and X points only. I firmly believe that 40k plays best at 1000-1500 points on a 6'x4' table but 1500 would appear to be the minimum that most organised events are for. People just want to play with all their toys I suppose.

Three, they need to actually start making games again. I want to explore the 40K and Fantasy universe and the main battle games are not the only/best way to do that,

Tru dat. Let the LotR licence expire and give me Epic 30,000 first and Mordheim/Necromunda redux to follow. All with glorious new plastic terrain!

 Easy E wrote:

First off, they would need to reduce the size of the game. I want to be able to manuever and not just pack the board with models. That means increasing points per model and using fewer models.

Reducing the size of the game would also reduce the start-up costs.

Two, they need to completely redo the turn sequence. IGOUGO is old and outdated. Plus, it is boring. This needs to change to alternate activation at the minimum.

Three, they need to actually start making games again. I want to explore the 40K and Fantasy universe and the main battle games are not the only/best way to do that,

I would agree with your first point, to a point. I think that armies like Guard, in many ways NEED the large numbers on the board. Though that said, perhaps, as a compromise on this aspect, they can have more easily variable table sizes, based on model counts?

I think that many other games have figured out decent, or better ways of doing turn sequence. Heck, I wouldn't mind a DnD style "initiative check" to determine who goes in what order.

I DEFINITELY agree with three. While I never played BFG or any of the current RPGs out there, I did like the idea of BFG and even Epic, and wish there were more current ways to get into those games.

I'm perplexed at the number of people who want LOTR to be dropped.

Wouldn't it be better for them to make money off it by doing it well?

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?

"Disparity". And no, it's not. There is no tariff on Games Workshop's products entering Australia. Prices should actually be 10% cheaper in Australia, because we only pay a 10% GST and not a 20% VAT.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm perplexed at the number of people who want LOTR to be dropped.

Wouldn't it be better for them to make money off it by doing it well?

Can it be done well? Lord of the Rings never offered anywhere near as much freedom to the player as 40k does in terms of flavour - it was about somebody else's characters, not your own. That was fine when we were talking about the Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit is twice as long as it should be - if not four times - and nowhere near as good.

Well, I certainly enjoy the game, just not the prices. It's a heroic skirmish in a relatively low fantasy setting. The rules are solid and lots of the models are nice for people who like their fantasy "classical".

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it needs to be dropped. It was a good moneymaker for GW when they were dealing with it properly- ie. when it was well marketed and priced.

I'm not a fan of the OTT grimdark that is modern 40K, but I don't want it do disappear because of that- I just don't play or buy things for it much any more. It seems churlish to want other people's fun to disappear just because you don't like it.

Edit: The movies, of course, are a different kettle of fish. Lots of mistakes made there.

I always find it interesting, the undercurrent on many forums of "when I'm talking about GW I'm talking about 40k." I know that it is now the money maker for GW, just an interesting observation.

40k really just needs to have the rules tightened up, with a an available low cost entry that will get new customers hooked on the hobby.

However, I strongly think that Warhammer and The Hobbit is where GW needs to make changes. I really don't know what could be done for The Hobbit, I think it's a smart system, some of the models are just priced insane.

For Warhammer GW needs to bring the soul of that setting back. Everyone seems to say, "Well Warhammer just seems like generic fantasy." I feel like that is far from the truth.

In the end, I don't think it would take much to bring me back. GW just doesn't want to make the effort. Fine, I'll go give my money to Warlord Games.

Better, tighter rules.

Less random tables.

Balanced armies.

Lower prices/increase value.

Bring back BFG.

I haven't left, but I guarantee that 99.9% of everyone who posts a reply will say...

"Price reduction"

I do think their prices are getting to be grossly absurd. I really wanted to do another Tyranid army when the new codex dropped, but the new kit prices are keeping me from doing it. Even after discounts from an online retailer, it's too much. I've finally reached my breaking point, I didn't think I had one, but apparently I do and GW's hit the mark.

I will continue to play 40K, but I will only lightly expand upon the armies I already have.

GW needs to make a 20% cut in their MSRP pricing across the board and a 25% cut for all newer kits (i.e. Tyanids, Space Marines, Eldar, Tau).

the prices are mostly OK with more and more standouts. many of the big kits, sternguard, witch elves etc are way overpriced for unknown reasons.

they should bring the overpriced kits in line with the rest and it would be fine.

i dont care how much they dress them up or how many dust jackets they put on it, the rules books otoh are stupidly overpriced for some copy paste from the last book garbage rule set. i would not even pay 20 dollars for most of these new codexs in their current state.

my vote goes to overhaul and fix the rules.

As miniatures can be comparably priced by competitors that are doing quite well like Infinity, Warmachine, etc., I think it's fair to say that there's something about the whole package that GW offers that makes their prices out of line. It's probably a combination of high model counts, codex numbers and figures per kit not lining up and a variety of other factors that make the prices seem so ridiculous.

It's like their rules are actively devaluing their miniatures, the way they package their miniatures is sub-optimal for the rules and the whole thing is presented as a money grind from the starter product on. Super expensive rulebooks, high price ebooks, day 0 DLC, etc., etc.,,

The only way I'd get back in is a complete and total overhall of every aspect of how GW approaches the market. As long as independant stores have to deal with GW directly rather than being able to order through distributors who don't try to dictate terms, I will NEVER buy another one of their products.

Overhall of the games.
Overhall of kits to make sense in terms of number of figures per sprue with the new overhalled rules.
Overhall of how products are sold and distributed.
Overhall of their legal strategy

No purchases until all that happens.

Prices? I don't think they need to cut the cost per kit, but instead offer an effective price cut by offering more figures per sprue and by designing sprues to be the best possible value for the customer rather than the best value for GW at the customer's expense.

Crazy, I know, offering a solid product at an appropriate price. What am I thinking?

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?

I don't see how that works. The model would cost the same to produce. The profit margins would be smaller. I think they should be focusing on getting more customers into the hobby than gauging the customer on every purchase.

Not that it matters the question isn't what should gw do to get more business. It is what would they have to do to get me to start buying them. Around a 50% maybe 40% cut in prices would make their models a decent value for money for me. At the moment they are not.

A Codex for my army would be a nice start, a real codex.

 Madcat87 wrote:
A Codex for my army would be a nice start, a real codex.

Well, I guess the squats' clock just got reset

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Reduced prices. Like, 50%

That would put them under twice as fast

 Blacksails wrote:
Bring back BFG.

Have an exalt for that


I said it at the start of the thread but I'll say it again, the prices don't need to actually drop.Yes it would be nice but realistically at this point it would be a very risky move for GW.

Instead they need to drastically raise the perceived value of their models. They are far from the best on the market and recently even their plastics have taken a hard hit with things like witch elves and shadow warriors, they are for all intents and purposed 5 monopose plastics in a unit of 10-40. Monopose (or close to it) plastics just plain suck.
As well there is the mess that is their game. Quite often recently I've seen models and thought 'oh wow, those are lovely (these aren't GW ones) but I have no use for them'. Everything I think that about I could easily work into either 40k or fantasy but I'm dismissing such thoughts out of hand because I have no interest in trying to muddle though those rulesets any more.

 carlos13th wrote:

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?

I don't see how that works. The model would cost the same to produce. The profit margins would be smaller. I think they should be focusing on getting more customers into the hobby than gauging the customer on every purchase.

Not that it matters the question isn't what should gw do to get more business. It is what would they have to do to get me to start buying them. Around a 50% maybe 40% cut in prices would make their models a decent value for money for me. At the moment they are not.

Lets say it costs $1 to produce a model, $1 to ship, and $1 in labor. Their G&A remains the same. If the model cost $10, they would have a $7 margin to cover their G&A expenses. Cut the price to $5 and they have a $2 Marin to work with. Now, to meet the expected demand because you will sell more, your G&A will increase because head count will increase. Mind you this would be labor for people not associated with manufacturing the product but people indirectly associated (ware houses, shop staff, management to oversee new employees, etc.). Next, to meet the new demand, you either have to get new machines to make the product (large capital outlays - debt? - GW currently has none other than trade payables disclosed in their statements). Next new labor or overtime to meet demand (unless the UK doesn't have over time laws like the US) which would mean an increase in their $1 per unit metric. Making more doesn't necessarily mean its cheaper because you have to store excess product that doesn't move which means larger ware houses, more utilities, and more labor. That's why sharp cuts won't happen, why you may see a small cut but nothing drastic. It's like the US healthcare system - try to make too many changes and now you can't figure out what worked and what didn't.

I think you will see prices change and several decreases on products but it will be about 10% or so. Nothing more than that over the next 6 months and they will probably offer several deals.

If they are smart, they will update their rule set for fantasy to test the waters. Offer the changes on their website like they did with the change to 4th edition. Gauge interest and tweak them based on feed back.

As far as the forums go, they dropped them because of a handful of bad apples (same with their face book account). If you want to communicate with them about their business practices, contact their investor relations. You don't have to flame their forums. Go on PP and complain about something they did. See how fast the thread gets locked and deleted. If you have a concern contact them directly. The other issue was their language filter - their forum would block any post using inappropriate language. While technology has changed in the 9 years since they had a forum, I think they should do it and just flag key words as inappropriate.

If you really don't like the way management is doing things, buy shares and form a group. Put together a list of demands you want management to address. Get the names of share holders to sign it and list the number of shares they have. At the end of the day, management will respond if you were to say you have 3% of the company making a specific inquiry. Contact them first for a response and tell them you want to know something specific by a deadline. If that fails, contact a news paper in the UK that discusses them in the finance section. They have analysts who follow them. Have them ask the question and now it's open in the public. I've got stock so you can count me in if you go this route. Just please don't go the route of an online petition as a group of concerned customers. It has more clout from a share holder as you are actually able to question their ability to lead and back up what you say by voting against them if necessary. 3-5% of the total shareholders could also get someone on their board if you position someone with the right background and experience in say running an independent shop.

 carlos13th wrote:

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?

I don't see how that works. The model would cost the same to produce. The profit margins would be smaller. I think they should be focusing on getting more customers into the hobby than gauging the customer on every purchase.

Not that it matters the question isn't what should gw do to get more business. It is what would they have to do to get me to start buying them. Around a 50% maybe 40% cut in prices would make their models a decent value for money for me. At the moment they are not.

the prices are fine. 33 US for 5 sanguinary guard is fair. buy from a discounter that figure drops to 25 bucks. which is a fair price IMO. i would not raise it more, i wouldn't drop it lower either.

gouging people by region is what needs to go. im not liking gouging people for new overpowered stuff either. compared to sanguinary guard, they are asking seventeen dollars more for sternguard for some unknown reason. all fiveman kits should be the same price, and 50 is too much. Leave it at 35, get rid of regional pricing and most of us will be happy.

wanting 50% off is just getting greedy on your side.

kb305 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?

I don't see how that works. The model would cost the same to produce. The profit margins would be smaller. I think they should be focusing on getting more customers into the hobby than gauging the customer on every purchase.

Not that it matters the question isn't what should gw do to get more business. It is what would they have to do to get me to start buying them. Around a 50% maybe 40% cut in prices would make their models a decent value for money for me. At the moment they are not.

the prices are fine. 33 US for 5 sanguinary guard is fair. buy from a discounter that figure drops to 25 bucks. which is a fair price IMO. i would not raise it more, i wouldn't drop it lower either.

gouging people by region is what needs to go. im not liking gouging people for new overpowered stuff either. compared to sanguinary guard, they are asking seventeen dollars more for sternguard for some unknown reason. all fiveman kits should be the same price, and 50 is too much. Leave it at 35, get rid of regional pricing and most of us will be happy.

wanting 50% off is just getting greedy on your side.

Could be tariffs for the unequal pricing. I don't want to pay more in the US because Canada or Australia charges a larger tariff. Same with the people in the UK - they shouldn't suffer because exporting the product costs more.

boyd wrote:
Could be tariffs for the unequal pricing. I don't want to pay more in the US because Canada or Australia charges a larger tariff.

I already told you, there is no tariff.

 notprop wrote:

So I suppose my main gripe would be that they have become so staid, more unit for existing armies isn't really innovation for me. Just 3 systems doesn't cut it and they have released some good rulesets in the last decade but not for their main game. The various Historical rulesets based off of Warmaster or the LoTRs rules (the Legends series) and the excellent Kampfe Groupe Normandie (missed out on 28mm WW2 there fellers!) have all come and gone and some are now being very successful for other companies. So I would see this change, not the reintroduction of historicals (that ship has sailed) so much as the release of other games. Spulk, Gorka Morka, Necromunda etc were good intros to newbs but also a boon to busy professionals/parents that have limited time to game like me. The odd time these get released I snap up a copy, that even meant a copy of Dreadfleet!

That's pretty much it for me also. If they put the 'Games' back into 'Games Workshop' - bring back some of the dynamism and creativity that made them the biggest company in the sci-fi/fantasy industry, and move beyond just re-releasing the same 3 games. Let the talented guys they have working with them exercise their creative muscle beyond what the suits dictate will make the largest margin. Help support the independents rather than declare war on them, realise that the wargaming hobby is in this together against the increasing number of options for kids free time, and that ultimately they are in the most important position to help realise that ambition.

TBH I know some of the changes within GW have come with the changes in myself. The core games have become increasingly targeted at kids (it's certainly lost its 'adult' edge - I won't say out and out 'childish' although some of those new kits are just so damned toy-like) as I myself have grown older. And, of course there is the same issue of playing the same game for 20 years, when you start realising the rules changes have reverted to a system used 2 editions ago. I don't listen to the same albums, play the same computer games over and over again through a long periods of time - why should the same be expected of wargaming?

But regardless of all of this, the biggest barrier right now is probably entry price. There is no real way an average middle class kid can get an army from scratch, of the points value and composition that GW intend. It was hard enough when I got into games more than 20 years ago, with a hell of a lot more skirmish and board-game type releases from GW available back then. I couldn't even imagine it if I was growing up now.

boyd wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

boyd wrote:
Is the price parity between other counties due to a tariff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:
Around 50% price reduction.

No codex's the main rulebook is expensive enough as it is and should contain army lists.

Decomplicate the rules. Way to many special rules and other such nonsense.

If you cut price by 50% won't that just double the costs to produce the model? Wouldn't that only compound the situation as they are beefing up their workforce and other selling expenses for less of a return?

I don't see how that works. The model would cost the same to produce. The profit margins would be smaller. I think they should be focusing on getting more customers into the hobby than gauging the customer on every purchase.

Not that it matters the question isn't what should gw do to get more business. It is what would they have to do to get me to start buying them. Around a 50% maybe 40% cut in prices would make their models a decent value for money for me. At the moment they are not.

the prices are fine. 33 US for 5 sanguinary guard is fair. buy from a discounter that figure drops to 25 bucks. which is a fair price IMO. i would not raise it more, i wouldn't drop it lower either.

gouging people by region is what needs to go. im not liking gouging people for new overpowered stuff either. compared to sanguinary guard, they are asking seventeen dollars more for sternguard for some unknown reason. all fiveman kits should be the same price, and 50 is too much. Leave it at 35, get rid of regional pricing and most of us will be happy.

wanting 50% off is just getting greedy on your side.

Could be tariffs for the unequal pricing. I don't want to pay more in the US because Canada or Australia charges a larger tariff. Same with the people in the UK - they shouldn't suffer because exporting the product costs more.

everyone knows it harks back to the exchange rates from the 90s.

If nothing else, they need to freeze prices for a while.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Bring back BFG.

Have an exalt for that

Mah nerfherda.

I also agree with the rest of your post; I'd spend more if the kits were...well, better or had more stuff. If the Basilisk was ~$5-10 cheaper and was a dual kit for the Medusa as well with bits for every upgrade, I'd be all over it.

I mean, imagine a plastic closed cabin bassie/medusa. It'd be a thing of beauty.

*Edit* Also, as a Mordian player, I either spend $50 per squad of 10 with no special weapons, or spend the same amount at Vic Minis for 'not-Mordians' that are fully posable multi-part resin with a huge amount of options.

Guess what I'm doing with my Guard army.

 AlexHolker wrote:

boyd wrote:
Could be tariffs for the unequal pricing. I don't want to pay more in the US because Canada or Australia charges a larger tariff.

I already told you, there is no tariff.

Not entirely true.

Canada, there isn't a tariff http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2014/01-99/01-99-t2014-eng.pdf

Refer to page 1365 of 1486.

For Australia, there is a 5% tariff http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/ht95aw2012.pdf
The UK is not on the preferential country list.

I'm sure other countries charge them as well.

Sorry, but all items shipped from GW US to Canada qualify as NAFTA goods are exempt from that tariff. They just put proper NAFTA documentation on their commercial invoice and no tariff, just GST/PST/HST. I used to do customs clearance as a job and have helped a local store with their GW shipments after they set up their account. Whether or not sprues shipped to GW US and then boxed there should count as NAFTA goods is another debate.

We'll see once the trade sales is moved to Lenton if they'll ship to each store across the Atlantic or if they'll still use their US distribution centre.

boyd wrote:
For Australia, there is a 5% tariff http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/ht95aw2012.pdf

Not on model kits, there isn't.

They would have to first show they are willing to listen to their customers:
- Play test new codexes and models.
- Have the company be more open in what they have planned for the future.
- If they are going to keep the prices as is, provide more models per box.
- Make the game less about massive (expensive) models and more about having fun.