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.

 Idolator wrote:
Then please direct me to the page that details the sales figures for the Codex Space Marines book, or the revenue generated by the sale of Captain Badrukk model, or the sales of printed rules material from September 2013.
Edit:
The reason why these types of things aren't listed in public investor reports is to protect businesses. Anyone could take these figures and correlate them to determine exactly which products and business practices provide the the most revenue from the company as well as pinpointing weaknesses for other businesses to exploit. I'm sure that competitors would love to know if there is a big demand for orc models wearing pirate garb, or that there is a greater demand for scary space elves than that for good-hearted space elves. Even breaking down the report into monthly increments would give this kind of information.

I never said it got that detailed, just that do need to break things down and often explain them in more detail. For example if you look at the report for 2013 you can find the below on page 33 (for the record they spent 56,032,000 GBP in FY 2013 (you just subtract the supply costs out to get the number) on "sales" which would be largely the B&Ms, a large reason why I think they'd make more if they'd just cut the stores and operate purely through FLGS stores like other wargaming companies do) (edit: it's on the bottom because of how attachments stack into the mix apparently):


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Preorders start 24th May, release 31st May, so peak sales online and by stores are in May. This is clearly to compensate for the sales drop in the previous 11 months, so that for the casual observer, annual total revenue looks more or less flat.

Tinfoil hat engaged!

Pft, that's purely amateur hour. Tinfoil HOUSE engaged!

 Red Corsair wrote:

Shingen wrote:

Oh good, let's encourage MSU spam and ban using multiple tanks below 2000 points. Oh, and we'd better take all that Escalation nonsense back out of the game.

I don't see a problem with this. Will help to stop Death Stars which quite frankly ruin the game for most people.

Plus it might help my DE in Purge the Alien missions. Its stupid when I practically table my opponent, have half my army left but still lose on kill points because I have 22 to give away and my opponent has 11.

Yea I agree. I have far less issues with MSU then I do with stupid unkillable units making a boring rubber match.

Agreed. Deathstars have been the thing that utterly ruined 40k to so many players. They tended to make the actual game a formality in which you either had a deathstar of equal or greater value, or you got to spend several turns picking your models up off the board without inflicting any damage in return. The rumored FOC changes make a huge step toward fixing that problem, so I applaud it.

I also think it is worth noting that the FOC doesn't outlaw deathstars outright. You can still use most of them, but only in higher point games. So if you love your Ovesa-star, you can play 3000 point games, and if you want to avoid Ovesa-stars, just play 1500 point games. It is a scalability that was lacking in the old FOC. This also addresses the issues with Lord of Wars. On Saturday at my FLGS, I setup to play a guy, and we had to pre-negotiate our game, because he wanted to play his LOW, but I don't have one, so to keep the game fun, he changed up his list. With percentage FOC rules, LOW don't unlock until higher point games, and the pre-negotiation has been formalized so that there are fewer negative feelings when someone does bring a deathstar or a LOW.

Even the Imperial Knight becomes more manageable. You basically can't ally one in if you are playing less than 1850, and you can only bring in 1 until 3500 or so.

When I go to the FLGS, every conversation about 40k revolves around how it is broken because of this deathstar build or that deathstar build, or this spam list or that spam list. We've got groups of players that don't want to play outside their group because of not fun games against deathstars or spam builds that have soured them on the 40k player base as a whole. I expect a percentage FOC to make a good step toward improving this, and the greater scalability is just awesome.

Deathstars have been an issue since 2nd. I love how they're only NOW an issue according to the majority though.

NamelessBard wrote:
Who is paying that much for a rule book?

If it's because you're going for a limited edition, then it seems like complaining about the price is rather silly.

No limited edition rule book. It was the first hard cover book. Now I forget how much I paid for. I thought it was around $100 Canadian for it.

But seeing how much codicies are now, and how little content some of them have, and how much was in the last rule book, and IF were are suppose to get Stronghold Assault and Escalation, I can't see GW selling it any less than $150 if not $200 since that how much it would cost you now to but all 3 books.

Something needed to replace the ET games in the landfill.

Really wish this game was a viable choice. How far the mighty have fallen.

 Grot 6 wrote:
Really wish this game was a viable choice. How far the mighty have fallen.

If GW maintains its track record of the odd numbers being the good ones then this will be a great edition! Otherwise brace for the flood of angry tears!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then please direct me to the page that details the sales figures for the Codex Space Marines book, or the revenue generated by the sale of Captain Badrukk model, or the sales of printed rules material from September 2013.
Edit:
The reason why these types of things aren't listed in public investor reports is to protect businesses. Anyone could take these figures and correlate them to determine exactly which products and business practices provide the the most revenue from the company as well as pinpointing weaknesses for other businesses to exploit. I'm sure that competitors would love to know if there is a big demand for orc models wearing pirate garb, or that there is a greater demand for scary space elves than that for good-hearted space elves. Even breaking down the report into monthly increments would give this kind of information.

I never said it got that detailed, just that do need to break things down and often explain them in more detail. For example if you look at the report for 2013 you can find the below on page 33 (for the record they spent 56,032,000 GBP in FY 2013 (you just subtract the supply costs out to get the number) on "sales" which would be largely the B&Ms, a large reason why I think they'd make more if they'd just cut the stores and operate purely through FLGS stores like other wargaming companies do):

What the heck does any of that have to do with what we were discussing? I know that you can find things like that. Never said that you couldn't .

We were discussing the fact that sales made in May could not be discerned from the information that they publish. That revenue gets lumped into the rest of the year and no one outside the board of directors or management staff have any idea if the revenue came in the last week of May or the month after the mid-year report. Making the bottom line sales and revenue figures look good.

Only those that follow the company closely would even be able to make the educated guess that this is merely due to a clever marketing ploy to increase demand for the most necessary component, in the final weeks of the fiscal year, and that this ploy would not be easily repeated.

Edit: You don't subtract those supply costs. They are inherently part of total expenditures. Expenditure in this case means monies spent.

I would buy it but it would be very frustrating to me. I am on a limited budget and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my 10 yo daughter plays as well). While that is dooable that would mean that I would no be able to buy any models that month. Also frustrating that I just started playing 8 weeks ago.

On the plus side everyone will have to learn the rules at the same time as me so it will even the playing field some.

 Grot 6 wrote:
Something needed to replace the ET games in the landfill.

I'm disappointed it took 7 pages for someone to suggest that.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then please direct me to the page that details the sales figures for the Codex Space Marines book, or the revenue generated by the sale of Captain Badrukk model, or the sales of printed rules material from September 2013.
Edit:
The reason why these types of things aren't listed in public investor reports is to protect businesses. Anyone could take these figures and correlate them to determine exactly which products and business practices provide the the most revenue from the company as well as pinpointing weaknesses for other businesses to exploit. I'm sure that competitors would love to know if there is a big demand for orc models wearing pirate garb, or that there is a greater demand for scary space elves than that for good-hearted space elves. Even breaking down the report into monthly increments would give this kind of information.

I never said it got that detailed, just that do need to break things down and often explain them in more detail. For example if you look at the report for 2013 you can find the below on page 33 (for the record they spent 56,032,000 GBP in FY 2013 (you just subtract the supply costs out to get the number) on "sales" which would be largely the B&Ms, a large reason why I think they'd make more if they'd just cut the stores and operate purely through FLGS stores like other wargaming companies do):

What the heck does any of that have to do with what we were discussing? I know that you can find things like that. Never said that you couldn't .

We were discussing the fact that sales made in May could not be discerned from the information that they publish. That revenue gets lumped into the rest of the year and no one outside the board of directors or management staff have any idea if the revenue came in the last week of May or the month after the mid-year report. Making the bottom line sales and revenue figures look good.

Only those that follow the company closely would even be able to make the educated guess that this is merely due to a clever marketing ploy to increase demand for the most necessary component, in the final weeks of the fiscal year, and that this ploy would not be easily repeated.

You did skip past my whole comment about the company being open to this point about large changes to the product line (for example: launching the new paint line) for you to be correct they'd have to be mum on this.

If they go to a % based FOC, then all those people who bought a ton of Leman Russes will flip out.

I imagine it'll disappoint people more than it makes them happy.

As is the way with Games Workshop.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then please direct me to the page that details the sales figures for the Codex Space Marines book, or the revenue generated by the sale of Captain Badrukk model, or the sales of printed rules material from September 2013.
Edit:
The reason why these types of things aren't listed in public investor reports is to protect businesses. Anyone could take these figures and correlate them to determine exactly which products and business practices provide the the most revenue from the company as well as pinpointing weaknesses for other businesses to exploit. I'm sure that competitors would love to know if there is a big demand for orc models wearing pirate garb, or that there is a greater demand for scary space elves than that for good-hearted space elves. Even breaking down the report into monthly increments would give this kind of information.

I never said it got that detailed, just that do need to break things down and often explain them in more detail. For example if you look at the report for 2013 you can find the below on page 33 (for the record they spent 56,032,000 GBP in FY 2013 (you just subtract the supply costs out to get the number) on "sales" which would be largely the B&Ms, a large reason why I think they'd make more if they'd just cut the stores and operate purely through FLGS stores like other wargaming companies do):

What the heck does any of that have to do with what we were discussing? I know that you can find things like that. Never said that you couldn't .

We were discussing the fact that sales made in May could not be discerned from the information that they publish. That revenue gets lumped into the rest of the year and no one outside the board of directors or management staff have any idea if the revenue came in the last week of May or the month after the mid-year report. Making the bottom line sales and revenue figures look good.

Only those that follow the company closely would even be able to make the educated guess that this is merely due to a clever marketing ploy to increase demand for the most necessary component, in the final weeks of the fiscal year, and that this ploy would not be easily repeated.

You did skip past my whole comment about the company being open to this point about large changes to the product line (for example: launching the new paint line) for you to be correct they'd have to be mum on this.

a

Where did you comment on the company being open about large changes in their product line? I honestly didn't see it?

Besides that.....Huh!?

How does advertising a new product have anything to to with reporting when money was made on a twice a year basis? Of course they're open about what they currently sell, they aren't running a speak-easy. They aren't open about new products in the works or which products are discontinued. Otherwise there wouldn't be internet threads dedicated to rumors.

I really hope these rumors are false, which I believe them to be. The starter box seems really lame. If it was generic marines I'd be a little more excited, but Blood Angels? No. Not interested.
Some of those rumored rules just add more dice rolling.

Since when has GW ever pulled a book when there's a new one being released? And if they did pull the book because there's a new edition, why is the digital edition still available?

 Ghaz wrote:
Since when has GW ever pulled a book when there's a new one being released? And if they did pull the book because there's a new edition, why is the digital edition still available?

Because a digital verstion dosen't take up shelf sapce, thus they can keep makeing money off of it.


Also the French Verstion of Dark Vengence is no longer on the Canadian GW site. Not sure if that's recent or not.

 whembly wrote:
Hmmm... interestingly, you can't place the rule book in the online cart.

Must be for realz?

I'm digging it since the next Ork codex would be 7th ed "ready".

Take it from me, as a CSM player. You really don't want to be the first codex after an edition when their good intentions haven't been completely dissolved yet. Judging by this edition you want to be 4th/5th in line to catch the writers when they're peaking.

 warboss wrote:
Chaos Space Marine Codex.

Which one?

Well, I'm glad I held off buying an army.

I shall have to see what May 31st holds.

MarsNZ wrote:
Take it from me, as a CSM player. You really don't want to be the first codex after an edition when their good intentions haven't been completely dissolved yet. Judging by this edition you want to be 4th/5th in line to catch the writers when they're peaking.

Meh, not really true. The 4th ed Ork and Daemon books both were solid throughout 5th ed. Likewise 5th ed Necrons were great throughout 6th. There's really nothing about writers peaking in stride, CSM just kinda got the short end of the stick.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I believe it is coming, it just isn't going to fix the game like everyone thinks

A minor (really minor) quibble - it isn't going to fix the game like everyone hopes, not thinks.

There are a fair number of folks that don't expect it to fix the game - but I think that everyone at least hopes that it does. (Even if those hopes are low.)

Goresaw wrote:
The rule book will be $80, full color hardback. It will contain tons of pictures of all the minatures, explain the lore and the fluff, and demonstrate several kinds of special scenarios.

As for rules, it will be 1 page explaining a D6, and then 60 blank pages for you to write your own rules for the game so you can forge your own narrative with an ultimate freedom like never before.

So, still an improvement over sixth edition, then?

The Auld Grump

This is a pile of Fething Squiggoth Gak!

I had my heart set on a June release of the new Ork Codex and Minis only to find out that GW is going to grace us with a new Rule Book, version 6.5 or 7 or other wise.

GW, Keep the new Fething Rule Book and release the new Ork Codex and Minis already!

You can still get a June Ork book, the rumours kicking around for a new Edition in May will still be technically correct if it happens.

People are still having trouble adjusting to weekly releases I guess.

 BigMekGearGrinda wrote:
This is a pile of Fething Squiggoth Gak!

I had my heart set on a June release of the new Ork Codex and Minis only to find out that GW is going to grace us with a new Rule Book, version 6.5 or 7 or other wise.

GW, Keep the new Fething Rule Book and release the new Ork Codex and Minis already!

I'm desperate for the new Ork stuff, but I figure his gives me more time to save up for the inevitable one click wallet murder.

I can't wait for this edition to hit, and tick off a bunch of people. Maybe they will all leave the game, and Dakka can be a place where gamers that love Warhammer can discuss their hobby, instead of post 7 pages of moaning and complaining and threats to go to a different game....


Oh wait...what am I saying...this is the internet...

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I can't wait for this edition to hit, and tick off a bunch of people. Maybe they will all leave the game, and Dakka can be a place where gamers that love Warhammer can discuss their hobby, instead of post 7 pages of moaning and complaining and threats to go to a different game....


Oh wait...what am I saying...this is the internet...

Splendid contribution guy, still surprises me that people think moaning about moaners is apparently a hip thing to be doing.

 Squidbot wrote:

 BigMekGearGrinda wrote:
This is a pile of Fething Squiggoth Gak!

I had my heart set on a June release of the new Ork Codex and Minis only to find out that GW is going to grace us with a new Rule Book, version 6.5 or 7 or other wise.

GW, Keep the new Fething Rule Book and release the new Ork Codex and Minis already!

I'm desperate for the new Ork stuff, but I figure his gives me more time to save up for the inevitable one click wallet murder.

Yeah, If this is the case, they will have officially priced me out. I played IG, Orks and Space Marines. The last set of rules was so bad that I quit playing and was waiting for fixes. Instead I've had or will have every one of my rule sets and core rules invalidated. In less than a year!

For the price of a single codex I can get two starter sets of X-wing, for the price of a BRB and a codex I can get an awesome set up with a bunch of ships to play a complete game with a lot of variety. I believe that other people have noticed similar things as well. Not a good sign for those located in Sherwood Forest.

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I can't wait for this edition to hit, and tick off a bunch of people. Maybe they will all leave the game, and Dakka can be a place where gamers that love Warhammer can discuss their hobby, instead of post 7 pages of moaning and complaining and threats to go to a different game....


Oh wait...what am I saying...this is the internet...

Yeah, there are people out there that don't complain every single post about just a game with plastic game pieces. The gaming group I'm with still has fun with the critically derided 'Worst edition of 40k'.

Honestly, why would people expect a completely awesome new edition after only 2 years and about half of the codices are still not updated yet.

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I can't wait for this edition to hit, and tick off a bunch of people. Maybe they will all leave the game, and Dakka can be a place where gamers that love Warhammer can discuss their hobby, instead of post 7 pages of moaning and complaining and threats to go to a different game....


Oh wait...what am I saying...this is the internet...

I see 7 pages of rumour discussion from people that all seem to have an interest in Warhammer, or Wargaming in general. Which is what this thread is for, no? Dakka would get boring really quickly if everyone had exactly the same opinion.
I saw very little moaning till your post.

 ace101 wrote:
Honestly, why would people expect a completely awesome new edition after only 2 years and about half of the codices are still not updated yet.

Because the only good reason for releasing a new edition after only 2 years is that they realised what a train-wreck their current edition is?