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.

 Wayshuba wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Since 1994 Average home prices in the USA have increased around 120% (based on the 10 city average.. The 20 city average doesn't go back that far). Prior to the 08 blow up, it had increased over 195% over that period. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices

Um yeah. We were talking about the last decade and you show statistics of real estate for the last 20 YEARS. Obviously if my real estate holdings are 30%-50% over the last ten, then 120% over 20 years sounds feasible.

Discussion was about last ten years not twenty.

I don't remember if it was you or someone else, but we got on the track of pointing out that salaries have doubled over the past 20 years and I made a fair comparison over the same period to show the loss in purchasing power over the same period.. I never quoted 10 years either but used 2000 as a starting point specifically because that is when we started seeing the middle class shrink substantially. So yeah, over time, real estate has outpaced the rate of which our salaries are growing. Same thing can be said of Oil too which was at $14 20 years ago..

Also.. I'm bearish so I wont be eating any crow if GW goes lower in price.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Why do have to throw in this barb about an alternative not having a sufficient audience to sustain them? it doesn't actually support your initial argument about replacement goods at all.

I've said numerous times throughout this thread that I didn't think that many of these other gaming companies would be around after a cyclical decline and pointed to their margins being too low to be able to deal with a drop in volume. I'm not singling any specific company out, but just saying that in order for these games to continue to be produced and sold to consumers, people are going to have to maintain a rate of purchases that keeps their operating numbers in the black. Same can be said of GW.

I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?

Given that GW is the only public company, and therefore the only one obliged to disclose these things.

Given that GW make a healthy 70 odd percent markup, I can't imagine any of the companies charging "almost as much" for an "inferior product" are doing too badly in the margin stakes.

Especially when only GW have the millstone of a chain of stores to support.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?

Given that GW is the only public company, and therefore the only one obliged to disclose these things.

Given that GW make a healthy 70 odd percent markup, I can't imagine any of the companies charging "almost as much" for an "inferior product" are doing too badly in the margin stakes.

Especially when only GW have the millstone of a chain of stores to support.

and to add...many of these companies have been around since before 2008.. when the real drop from the Great Recession came... and they seemed to survive just fine.

Recessions, historically, have always been good for leisure products and alcohol. Might have to do with people wanting something to take their minds off reality, but who knows.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
And they did.
Really what is your point? First it looked like you didn't believe that GW ever borrowed money to cover a dividend and when I clearly show that they have, you just say that?
You're either playing a game of shifting goal posts or you're doing a terrible job of communicating.

Never said that.. I just said that if they did end up borrowing to pay for this dividend, it will be disclosed. I never implied that they haven't done that in the past. The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for years.

Look a few posts up and refresh your memory:

"At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/13 11:16:48"

Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.

azreal13 wrote:
I mean, trying to argue a tabletop wargame isn't a valid comparison for another tabletop wargame? Sheesh!

I actually think the industry is trending towards a state of affairs where Derek becomes correct, but not in the way one might think or the way he even means. I think as GW denies more and more products to independent retailers and concentrates on direct only sales, you'll see GW continue to make itself irrelevant to the larger wargaming hobby and finally succeed in creating an entirely isolated (albeit shrinking and declining) market.

Well, unless there's this thing called the internet that people might use to find out GW isn't the only game in town. Then they'll just recruit customers who will later be customers for their competition and fail in their attempt at market isolation.

Actually now that I give this some thought, maybe this is the situation right now. Maybe GW's sales and revenues are flat while the rest of the industry is booming because they have succeeded in developing an isolated market. The isolated, artificial market that relies on consumer ignorance is shrinking while the larger market flourishes.

Now GW still sells some portion of their products into the wider market. So they are still in direct competition with companies like Warlord, Perry or Victrix. They go to the same trade shows and sell to the same punters. They take up space on store shelves near eachother. They're available at the same online retailers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
I'm not singling any specific company out, but just saying that in order for these games to continue to be produced and sold to consumers, people are going to have to maintain a rate of purchases that keeps their operating numbers in the black. Same can be said of GW.

So... more of the "everything is explained by the coming economic doom!" argument?

I'm probably more pessimistic than most. I actually think we're heading towards resource wars and a decline of the middle class like we've never seen before. As well as massive currency volatility, inflation, direct money printing by major central banks and skyrocketing inflation. As well as the continued trend of productivity gains not translating into real wage gains.

But I'm not going to pretend that coming hardship retroactively causes GW to have bad sales and that nothing the company actually does could possibly be the cause of their uninspiring results.

This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.

 frozenwastes wrote:
This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.

That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.

As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.

I could definitely see GW being the outlier company (more than they already are) that just kind of hangs around, but the industry has moved on. So where GW was once the main game, eventually (and I know a lot of markets are like this already) it'll just be something that people remember from years ago, still chugging around but nobody really plays anymore.

The combination of only raising prices, giving the finger to people who want even a nod towards balance (which until as late as 2009, GW at least pretended to care how rules would impact pickup games and tournament play), and constant screwing around just to push more kit is going to ruin them.

Once again, because why not:

Me wrote:(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in your way

Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say

And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play

 frozenwastes wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.

They aren't assuming it's the case at all. It's right in their financials which you can find with a google search. The reason people are talking about it is because GW has done it.

In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.

Very nice.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?

One of the main criticisms i've seen of GW is that they cut into the margins of the independent retailer. That makes their margins larger than their competition. Unless you want to argue that other game companies are doing the same.

 Talizvar wrote:
"At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.

Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.

It is a work of fiction since you can't actually prove that they took on debt in 2014 to pay out a dividend. If they do, then congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that there is no current evidence to suggest they have added any debt.

 slowthar wrote:
That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.

As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.

You are exaggerating my statements and taking them out of context honestly..

How GW operates directly impacts their sales. But we aren't looking at "what if" numbers here, we are looking at what they have reported and trying to project that into the future. If you are doing projections, you look at best case and worst case scenarios and see how it would impact their business and their competitors. I don't care what business you are in, upstarts usually fall to the wayside during recessions. That's kind of the point of why people care if we have one. Larger companies that are established do better during recessions. That's just the way it works. Hence the term "flight to quality".

As a capitalist, you should be able to acknowledge that easy credit can create misallocations of capital. Can no one remember 6+ years ago?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.

If they do take out a loan to pay out a dividend this quarter, I'll be the first one to say they are setting themselves up for a problem. Like you said though, there is nothing to suggest they have done that at this time.

 TheKbob wrote:
There are some reasons why PP minis cost so much. Part of it probably has to do with their capabilities and that a lot of models use a thick, heroic style that requires more materials. They are also a larger scale than 40k. Many of the metals are cheaper than a similar sized finecast. I have several "large" metal minis that run about $12~$20, usually casters being more pricey. Nothing like the GW Fantasy Ogres that are out of this world priced. When PP goes from a traditionally metal kit to their resin, you see a significant price decrease. My Bane Thralls went from $85~ish a box to $60~ish a box.

Umm, are you talking about real resin or 'restic' which is not resin at all? AIUI, most of the PP infantry kits nowadays are PVC plastic?
On PP site, Bane Thralls are listed as $50 per 10 models, material "plastic".

Many GW kits btw also got cheaper when transferred to plastic: Killa Kans used to be €30 apiece (or was it 35) when metal, nowadays they are three for €36.

I think the reason why GW and PP minis are expensive is simply that producing high-end miniatures is expensive, despite what many people believe. Remember that it was partly what did Rackham in, back in the day. Reason why Perry Miniatures can offer so much cheaper plastic than GW or PP is likely also simple: they have limited range (their plastic range has just 25 titles atm), low overhead and the sets themselves are not terribly elaborate. Also I wonder whether they're doing their production in-house, or is it subcontracted to China?

Backfire wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.

They aren't assuming it's the case at all. It's right in their financials which you can find with a google search. The reason people are talking about it is because GW has done it.

In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.

Silliness. Why on earth borrow the money and pay interest when you have the liquid assests to pay it in full?

Now I have to go and quote Billy Madison.... I didn't want to have to go there.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 frozenwastes wrote:
But I'm not going to pretend that coming hardship retroactively causes GW to have bad sales and that nothing the company actually does could possibly be the cause of their uninspiring results.

Except i'm actually able to show that we are losing middle class jobs and losing our purchasing power has been going on since 2000. People have been bitching about GW since I started in the hobby and nothing you guys are actually talking about is anything new. It's sort of like me trying to argue that Apple is doomed because it's not compatible with Windows. That's a 14+ year old argument just like all the ones surrounding GW.

 frozenwastes wrote:
This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.

Why is a recession considered "economic doom"?

They are the established brand right now and their competitors are the small upstarts. Pointing out that these small companies are much more likely to go under is a valid point to be discussed. It applies to every industry. Ofcourse company specific issues matter, but their positioning for the primary trend matters much more than marketing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:
Silliness. Why on earth borrow the money and pay interest when you have the liquid assests to pay it in full?

Ask AAPL.. They took out a ton of long term debt and then paid out a dividend even though they had plenty of cash on their balance sheet.

The danger point is that GW is the established brand for 40K and nothing else (OK, a bit of Fantasy). It is their only brand and if it goes sour they are big time arse fethed.

Companies can deliberately take on debt in order to pay interest as a tax dodge.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?

One of the main criticisms i've seen of GW is that they cut into the margins of the independent retailer. That makes their margins larger than their competition. Unless you want to argue that other game companies are doing the same.

It's adorable when you try and argue things you don't understand.

Nobody is arguing that GW "cut into the margins of indys."

I'm not even sure what that means, or how it would be achieved. If you're referring to their practice of using independent retailers as canaries to suss out where they should open their own stores, and then fething the Indy over with erratic stock availability etc, then ok, that's a thing they are alleged to do.

But it doesn't have anything to do with margins.

The fact is GW should have higher margins because of their greater economies, but then they also have some fairly horrendous overheads too, which I am not aware of any other competitor having to contend with.

 Talizvar wrote:
"At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.

Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.

It is a work of fiction since you can't actually prove that they took on debt in 2014 to pay out a dividend. If they do, then congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that there is no current evidence to suggest they have added any debt.

Who said anything about 2014?

 slowthar wrote:
That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.

As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.

You are exaggerating my statements and taking them out of context honestly..

How GW operates directly impacts their sales. But we aren't looking at "what if" numbers here, we are looking at what they have reported and trying to project that into the future. If you are doing projections, you look at best case and worst case scenarios and see how it would impact their business and their competitors. I don't care what business you are in, upstarts usually fall to the wayside during recessions. That's kind of the point of why people care if we have one. Larger companies that are established do better during recessions. That's just the way it works. Hence the term "flight to quality".

As a capitalist, you should be able to acknowledge that easy credit can create misallocations of capital. Can no one remember 6+ years ago?

Privateer Press are what, 14, years old? Hardly a new business. FFG have been kicking around for a good while too. In fact, all the established players (excepting Corvus Belli? Not sure on them) have been around for definitively longer than that oh so crucial first three years. Not that it matters, a well run business with a sound model and good product will, in all likelihood, survive regardless of age.

Backfire wrote:
In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.

If they do take out a loan to pay out a dividend this quarter, I'll be the first one to say they are setting themselves up for a problem. Like you said though, there is nothing to suggest they have done that at this time.

That's good, nobody was suggesting it.

Herzlos wrote:

The X-Wing blisters still cost about the same as the bottom end of similar sized GW blisters (the £12.50 characters rather than the £25 characters), except they come pre-painted, have all the rule cards and tokens you need, and make up a significant proportion of a force (i.e probably 25% of a force rather than 2%).

Revell Millenium Falcon easy-kit is about same size as X-Wing Falcon, but half the price though obviously it does not contain markers or counters.

 Wayshuba wrote:

GW does not have the quality to justify any of their pricing. Aesthetics are not necessarily quality, as that is always personal preference. Quality to me is this simple - if I buy a GW mini and a mini from another manufacturer - will both of them last years on my shelf and give me plenty of years of playing time. In this aspect, GW is no different than any other manufacturer. However, with Finecast, that is even debatable. Finecast can wreck a miniature just sitting in your car on a fairly warm day. No other manufacturer has that problem.

Regular hard plastic can warp in sunlight - I've experienced that myself with couple of Airfix kits...

 Wayshuba wrote:

The release of 7th edition is a particularly telling sign. The LEs, run at 40% of the total of 6th edition, are STILL available weeks after release when 6th edition sold out in a matter of hours at a higher quantity. Reports are leaking out that Dystopian Wars, 2nd edition, is outselling 40k 7th edition by a factor of 7 to 1 in some areas.

Uh...I wouldn't bet on DW outselling 40k just yet. In "some ares" (ie. this area) noboby plays any of the Spartan games titles...

That 7th ed 40k isn't selling as well as 6th edition is hardly a surprise. It came up less than two years after that. Nobody I know of has bought the ruleset. However, nobody I know is planning on quitting GW either.

 Wayshuba wrote:

The next period financials are going to be less about if GW turned it around and more about how quickly they are going to reach bottom. The signs are already there in the last period that desperation is sinking in (rushing digital releases out like candy; rushed release of 7th edition; 70%-100% price increases on certain new products; moving 1,100 products to direct only; inability to maintain acceptable stock levels on new product releases - Wood Elves; and the biggie, upping the dividend to much more than normal - 20 pence vs. 16 pence normal) and the financials are going to be disappointing.

Ummm...their dividend was SMALLER than normal as they skipped giving half-year dividend.
"70 to 100% price increases on certain new products"? Which ones? I hope you're not saying "limited edition". By the way, have you noticed that for second straight year they have skipped their annual Great Spring Price Increase.
Lead time for project like 40k 7th edition is much bigger than six months. It was started at least a year in advance. "Rushing digital releases" and "moving products to Direct Only" are policies which have been on place for much longer than six months.

Only thing which you're likely correct is that their next financial report probably isn't going to be particularly good, though I do not expect it to be absolute disaster either. They'd have to had to warn the stockholders from such signifant negative development.

Last time they had a revenue drop was in 2009-2010 half year, when they dropped from £62.5 to £60 million. It looks to me that 6th edition 40k brought them back to growth after slow decline, then things ran high until wildly popular Tau release last year, then it was down again. Kirby's comment about their sales decline starting 'in first half of 2013' seems to point to that direction.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Except i'm actually able to show that we are losing middle class jobs and losing our purchasing power has been going on since 2000. People have been bitching about GW since I started in the hobby and nothing you guys are actually talking about is anything new. It's sort of like me trying to argue that Apple is doomed because it's not compatible with Windows. That's a 14+ year old argument just like all the ones surrounding GW.

Okay, one more time. Please read this SLOWLY.

1.) We are NOT currently in an economic recession.
2.) Market has grown by double-digits for five straight years at an average of 15% per year.
3.) Many of GW's competitors ARE NOT FREAKIN' UPSTARTS. You keep thinking they are small. Compared to GW yes, but they are not garage businesses either.
4.) Many of GW's competitors were here in this little crash called THE GREAT RECESSION. They kept right on growing through it without a hiccup, so your theory has been completely proven wrong already.
5.) GW posted a DOUBLE-DIGIT DECLINE in revenue in their last period. This is a MAJOR change for any large corporation at any time. It is indicative of a shift in customer buying behaviors.
6.) All the ancillary facts, opinions, and other such nonsense you have shown have had NO IMPACT whatsoever in this market in the Great Recession or the last five years, yet you keep saying it has when all the evidence is you are 100% completely and utterly wrong.
7.) You keep spewing US facts. GW is a GLOBAL company. The US middle class may be going bye-bye because of being lead by corrupt and inept government, but this is not happening elsewhere to the same degree. Canada's middle class is doing just fine, as are those of many, many other countries.
8.) As you like to say, "the proof is in the pudding", and all the market proof is directly opposite of what you are saying. What you have been saying didn't prove out in 2008 (and don't even throw Rackham in there as an example because Jean Bey's own discussion of the circumstances of failure was Rackham investing in developing product and inventory that didn't sell - ala AT-43 and pre-painted Confrontation minis).

dereksatkinson wrote:
They are the established brand right now and their competitors are the small upstarts. Pointing out that these small companies are much more likely to go under is a valid point to be discussed. It applies to every industry. Of course company specific issues matter, but their positioning for the primary trend matters much more than marketing.

Now, I am going to put a challenge to you here. Provide specific examples rather than generalizations. One man pizza shops do not count. Established brands, big companies, or small companies does not matter. What matters is if the company has socked away enough cash and can trim expenses enough to survive a downturn. If I do remember correctly, and my memory might be a little hazy here, it was the huge banks and multi-billion dollar auto companies that needed bailouts or else they were going to go bye-bye. But Tesla, founded in 2003, and much smaller than the big auto companies, wasn't running to Washington for bailouts. Nor were a lot of the smaller banks that survived the recession just fine.

Ponder on this point. GW has a much bigger cost obligation than any of their competitors. A cost obligation that is key to their continued revenue and survival. Something not a single one of their competitors have. In addition, GW does not have a lot of cash reserves for a company that has been profitable for as many years as they have. A company with a management team that has half a clue (which GWs does not) would NOT be paying any dividend at all right now and keeping that cash on hand just in case of an economic downturn. Just the fact that they paid a higher than normal dividend speaks clearly they are not planning in any way, shape or form for an economic downturn. Otherwise, it can only be that the next period financials are really going to be bad and they are hoping the announcement of the higher than normal dividend is going to shore up the stock price for the inevitable crash coming after financials publications.

 Daedleh wrote:

Presumably the next interim report will have a new 40k starter set which I suspect will be even more of a boost than regular 7th ed books, especially if it's a brand new set and not just Dark Vengeance. Of course if they don't put the full mini-rulebook in the starter set then it could flop as badly as the 7th LE books have. The next interim will also be comparing to the current interim report, so it's hard to believe that it won't be at least small YOY growth due to the tail end of the 7th ed release and new starter set, even if the underlying business is not doing well.

Alas, 7th edition doesn't seem to be getting its own starter set, at least for a while. Lets not forget that starters are quite expensive to produce, so they want to squeeze out maximum mileage out of each.
It doesn't really look like they're going to have much of a "magic bullet" for quick sales fix this year. 7th edition book of course will sell some, but obviously enthusiasm is down as it came out so soon. And a new mini-rulebook isn't alone going to boost DV into new sales frenzy. Maybe if they add a new limited edition mini into it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

1.) We are NOT currently in an economic recession.

Well, US is not technically in recession, but it's close... And EU is doing worse than USA...

As for Rackham, as I understand it, they sold lots of minis but didn't actually make much money and when they ran into trouble, hired some "marketing experts" who didn't understand the business and ruined the company for good.

Backfire wrote:
Ummm...their dividend was SMALLER than normal as they skipped giving half-year dividend.
"70 to 100% price increases on certain new products"? Which ones? I hope you're not saying "limited edition". By the way, have you noticed that for second straight year they have skipped their annual Great Spring Price Increase.

Lead time for project like 40k 7th edition is much bigger than six months. It was started at least a year in advance. "Rushing digital releases" and "moving products to Direct Only" are policies which have been on place for much longer than six months.

Dividend for year was less, but for period it is 4 pence higher than normal.

70% price increase on Scions. Previous stormtroopers were 10 models for $41.25 in metal (or $4.13/model) and new Scions are 5 models in plastic for $35 (or $7/model) - a 70% price increase.

Monthly White Dwarf had 148 pages for $10 (or $0.67 a page). New White Dwarf is $4 for 32 pages ($0.125 a page) - almost a 100% price increase.

They are not doing across the board price increases now, but they are getting stupid silly on new releases instead (like $60 Witch Elves, $53 Flash Gitz, a $105 MorkGorkNaut that is half the size of the $115 Stompa and now a $37 single ork model in plastic).

Also, has anyone noticed the wierd thing going on with the Ork release? Now they are releasing the models AHEAD of the codex. Apparently they really do believe that the rules don't matter and people are just going to scoop up expensive models that they may never use once they see the rules in the codex.

In addition, for 7th edition and those hoping for the rules without the fluff and catalog you got your wish today. A mini-sized version of the rules is now available.... only it also comes with a mini-edition of all the codexes for the small price of $375. Hmmm... wonder how many players didn't already have their respective codexes, but I guess GW figures you will buy them all again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
As for Rackham, as I understand it, they sold lots of minis but didn't actually make much money and when they ran into trouble, hired some "marketing experts" who didn't understand the business and ruined the company for good.

Yes, there is more to the story and you are correct as well. Point is, it wasn't the recession that did them in as Derek claimed earlier, it was their own business decisions.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

 azreal13 wrote:
Privateer Press are what, 14, years old? Hardly a new business. FFG have been kicking around for a good while too. In fact, all the established players (excepting Corvus Belli? Not sure on them) have been around for definitively longer than that oh so crucial first three years. Not that it matters, a well run business with a sound model and good product will, in all likelihood, survive regardless of age.

Infinity itself has been around since 2005. Corvus Belli I'm not sure about, but they did their own range of 15mm fantasy miniatures before starting Infinity. So they're pretty old too.

dereksatkinson wrote:


historical isn't in direct competiton with 40k or fantasy.. very different groups of people play them. I'm actually looking at it from the business definition. I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge that from both of our perspectives, we are both right.

Citation needed.

No, SCE, no citation needed. Nobody has ever, in the history of wargaming, started playing Bolt Action or Flames Of War instead of a GW game. Never happened. Nobody has ever moved on from a GW game to Napoleonics or Ancient Battles either. Na-uh.


[/sarcasm]

Damn, guess I need to sell the Romans I've been building for the last 5 years. I definitely do play fantasy and sci-fi genre games, by Derek's Law (tm) I can't possibly play a historical as well. Guess that's my Napoleonic French cavalry division up the swanny too.

Anyone want to buy cheap Hail Caesar and Black Powder rulebooks? Proof of the non-ownership of sci-fi or fantasy rulesets will be required.

The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.

Tsilber wrote:
The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.

Not sure if serious or Imperial servitor.

Or if a commissar is behind you with a gun to your head.

 Wayshuba wrote:
and now a $37 single ork model in plastic)

I had to look this up.... mother of god... is that $37 for ONE EFFIN' PLASTIC SPRUE?!

Wow.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, SCE, no citation needed. Nobody has ever, in the history of wargaming, started playing Bolt Action or Flames Of War instead of a GW game. Never happened. Nobody has ever moved on from a GW game to Napoleonics or Ancient Battles either. Na-uh.


[/sarcasm]

Funnily enough, I myself am wrapping up my Warhammer 40K (Raven Guard SM) and Lord of the Rings forces (Arnor, Gondor, Rivindell, Mordor and Angmar) and beginning to "move on" to historical games. SAGA by Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk in particular (which I like so much that I want to use the rules for Lord of the Rings too). And possibly Bolt Action, I'd love to try that out and do an Operation Market Garden (Arnhem) British Paratrooper force.

I don't intend to quit 40K and LOTR SBG and I'm keeping my miniatures (and trading the ones I don't use), but I am proceeding with an end game in mind - setting myself goals, at which point my collections will be "complete". And I'm using 3rd Party miniatures to convert and/or proxy where possible. Gripping Beast's plastic Saxon Thegns, Vikings and Dark Age Warriors will make for great Rohirrim infantry. Victoria Miniatures and Anvil Industry have some great Sci Fi trooper miniatures that I'd like to use as Imperial Guard allies for my Space Marines.


Derek's problem is that he (appears to be) stuck in a Black & White mindset.

His idea that 40K and Fantasy players are completely different to Historical players is completely arbitrary.

Yes, that might appear to be true if the only Wargaming venue you ever set foot in is a Gamesworkshop store, where the target demographic tends to be young kids who know nothing but GW, and the naturally higher concentration of GW Fanboy Diehards Neck Beards <Insert Wargamer stereotype here>.

But all sensible Wargamers will simply play and collect whatever appeals to them, not what brand name is slapped on the box. We pick games and miniatures based on our personal preferences. Some people may prefer Heroic Scale Sci Fi (Warhammer 40K) and Fantasy (WHFB). And other people may prefer Historicals (Napoleonics). But genre preferences are not mutually exclusive, as Derek appears to be suggesting. Without some kind of extensive survey of Fantasy and 40K players vs Historical players, to say that Sci Fi, Fantasy and Historical games are played by entirely different people is a huge sweeping generalisation.

Hell, I started Wargaming with LOTR SBG ~2003 at the age of 12, then at 17 I started a Raven Guard Space Marine army with 5th Ed in 2008 (though I haven't played since 5th Ed, about 3 years ago now). I'm now working on an Anglo Saxon / Anglo Danish force for SAGA. I would like to try out Bolt Action, Infinity and Muskets & Tomahawks. Large scale Napoleonic games do not appeal to me personally (nor do mass battle games in general), but I'd love to try out a Napoleonic era skirmish game based on the Sharpe tv series.

I picked Gripping Beast's plastic Saxon kits over GW's Rohan Warriors because I regard the Rohan plastics as outdated and lacking variety in poses, whereas GB's multi-part plastics and plethora of bits work great for conversions. So I'm doing a converted dual-use force that can reasonably pass as Anglo Saxons in a historical game and also as Rohan infantry in LOTR SBG. And I still have a large stock pile of bits left over that I'm using to convert my other LOTR miniatures.


The guy at my club that introduced me to SAGA (and historical Wargaming in general) is a 50+ Wargamer. From what I've seen him playing he appears to prefer historical... Dark Age Vikings/Saxons etc, WW2 Flames of War, <28mm Historicals (Impetus, Warhammer Ancients etc). But he also plays Warhammer 40K and Fantasy (he has a big Space Marine tank army).


Wargaming is not Black & White, its Gray.

Maybe your wargaming is gray. Mine is at least primed and generally fairly well painted ;-)

*rimshot*

Yeah, I'm also in the "switched to historicals from GW" camp. All my hobby money that used to go to GW for my SM army is now going to Perry and GB and Mantic. I'm even using my Rohan figures for pseudo-historical battles (basically using historical rules but in a fictional setting).

Yes, historicals are competing against GW for my money, and they're winning hard.