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.

I think his point is, if recasters disappeared, would those two friends go back to spend big bucks on GW?

 Vermis wrote:
I think his point is, if recasters disappeared, would those two friends go back to spend big bucks on GW?

Yes. Even with recasts it's still a silly amount of money to spend on toy soldiers.

You go after chinese recasteres like any counterfeiters, at customs coming into the country. Chinese law means gak all then.

Just a tad harder, and much smaller value, than the big items that customs are used to looking for

 Vermis wrote:
I think his point is, if recasters disappeared, would those two friends go back to spend big bucks on GW?

Yes they would. The guys I know would go back to hunting and searching for the best deal on GW stuff. They are still buying GW models in their mind.


The people that would be a bigger concern would be the ones who bought almost all non "official" models Mantic, Kabuki, the other 500 options on kickstarter. Those people would be the ones not coming back. They may still play the game but they have already left on their own terms. You have almost zero chance of getting those customers back.

I have reported it to GW legal. To whoever said it first. There is F all they can do about it. If a shipment wouldn't get seized they have no recourse of stopping it. None. Chinese law makes their manufactures basically immune to litigation from international parties.

I said 6th edition was popular. I didn't say it was liked by all. 6th edition sold very well.

Toofast wrote:
GW will not and cannot go after recasters based in China. Chinese law is basically setup to prevent anyone from going after their many copiers and cloners of other companies' products. One of my other hobbies is mechanical vaporizers. An authentic mod from an original manufacturer is usually $200-400. A week after a new one is released, the Chinese copy it with the cheapest material possible and awful machining and threads. They even use the exact same logo which is usually trademarked by the original manufacturer. They have been doing this for a couple years and nobody can go after them because they're in China. Go to fasttech.com if you don't know what I'm talking about. I feel bad for the authentic makers because it is cutting into their pockets and they're usually 1 man operations or at most 5-6 guys who put their time, money, blood, sweat and tears into bringing a beautiful, well machined product to market only to have the Chinese clone it a week later for 1/10th of the price. It's bull gak and I wish the cloners would be sued and shut down but it will never happen. The point of my long winded, mostly off topic post is that no matter how much money recasters take from GW, even their sue happy legal team is not going to be able to stop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also collect Strider knives. The Chinese copy those too and Mick Strider can't do a thing about it. If you go on ebay and search Strider SMF, you can see the real deal for $300-500+ right next to the Chinese copies using the strider logo for $75. It's just sad.

There needs to be a distinction drawn between "counterfeiting" and "reproducing."

I wasn't previously aware, but learned over the course of the last thread that talked specifically about the topic, that what the Chinese are doing isn't counterfeiting, and what they're doing in the specific context of miniatures is different ex ought from the activities detailed in the quote to make those activities a poor comparison.

In order to be a "counterfeiter" one has to be trying to sell the product as if it were the real thing. so at full price, or near to it. Counterfeiting as a crime has a component of deception included.

What the Chinese do is sell imitations, but at a price level that any reasonable person aware of what they're buying will know is excessively cheap, enough to prompt an element of suspicion from them, and, to take the examples in the quote, often at commensurate quality for the price paid.

Recasts of minis muddy the waters still further because I've often seen people with first hand experience cite that they are equal to, or even superior to, the original models. So rather than counterfeiters, we have people offering duplicates of equivalent quality for a substantial discount. Undoubtedly illegal in most countries, but essentially all they're doing is reproducing without permission, which is a civil offence, rather than 'stealing' anything or counterfeiting, which are both criminal.

Nevertheless, while they may indeed be getting more popular, I'm still to see anyone make any sort of compelling case that any damage they may be doing to GW's bottom line has increased significantly from where it was a year ago.

 lobbywatson wrote:


I said 6th edition was popular. I didn't say it was liked by all. 6th edition sold very well.

Any proof of this?

Because every shred of evidence points to exact opposite.

PhantomViper wrote:

 lobbywatson wrote:


I said 6th edition was popular. I didn't say it was liked by all. 6th edition sold very well.

Any proof of this?

Because every shred of evidence points to exact opposite.

Try the 2012-13 annual report. You know the one where they had increased sales after the release of 6th... But you're right I pulled that out of my rear end...

Azrael - its not a civil offence, as it is on a commercial scale. In the UK at least it would either be counterfeit (it doesnt have to be nearly the same price - faux'lexs are counterfeit goods, but not anywhere near the price!) or, if they were very careful, just something akin to copyright. Both of these are, of course, criminal.

They should be stopped at the borders, but sadly theyre just not that big a prolem compared to counterfeit alcohol, cigarettes etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Azrael - its not a civil offence, as it is on a commercial scale. In the UK at least it would either be counterfeit (it doesnt have to be nearly the same price - faux'lexs are counterfeit goods, but not anywhere near the price!) or, if they were very careful, just something akin to copyright. Both of these are, of course, criminal.

They should be stopped at the borders, but sadly theyre just not that big a prolem compared to counterfeit alcohol, cigarettes etc.

I agree sir. The mini counterfeit market is small potatoes to clothing, electronics, vice products etc... The customs guys are looking for big fish.

Also I've seen this things first hand. Mostly they are of almost equal quality. After paint no one can tell. Best way to spot them is the color of resin or plastic. It's different then finecast, GW plastic or FW resin.

 lobbywatson wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 lobbywatson wrote:


I said 6th edition was popular. I didn't say it was liked by all. 6th edition sold very well.

Any proof of this?

Because every shred of evidence points to exact opposite.

Try the 2012-13 annual report. You know the one where they had increased sales after the release of 6th... But you're right I pulled that out of my rear end...

Backfire wrote:Spring 2012: £68.3 New Citadel paint range, Vampire Counts
Autumn 2012: £67.5 6th edition 40k and starter set

Again, I don't know where you are getting your numbers.

And even GW seems to disagree with you, if 6th was such a large success, why did GW chose to replace it so quickly?!

Ah, thats a false conclusion to make though. Companies dont just replace quickly when somethign is doing badly - wider alignment requirements (for example, car companies usually operate a 7 year or so cycle, but often go shorter if this fits in with the opening of new facilities, regulatory changes etc. mkV golf etc) could force a change, or frankly they came up with a cool idea and wanted to get i tout there as quickly as possible.

You cannot state, categorically, that 6th edition was replaced solely because it sold badly. You cannot even point to sales fogures for "6th edition", or at least you havent - do you have numbers comparing 6th edition rulebook / core set sales to 5th? 4th?

If 6th sold well, we'd have seen a notable increase in revenue, not a continued flat line. Unless by your definition of 'sold well', you really mean 'sold adequately' or 'sold average'.

 Blacksails wrote:
If 6th sold well, we'd have seen a notable increase in revenue, not a continued flat line. Unless by your definition of 'sold well', you really mean 'sold adequately' or 'sold average'.

Not true, at all. Unless you assume that selling a new rulebook necessarily increases model sales?

6th edition rules could have sold incredibly well, but noone really bought many additional models, so overall the numbers were flat or even down.

Avoid the causationled arguments, as you dont, or havent supplied us with, the facts to back them up.

It is pure supposition to state that 6th edition sold badly, hence 7th was brought out so quickly.

Then by what metric of 'sold well' are you going by?

I think its perfectly reasonable to say that 6th sold okay, or average, or good enough, but there's also no evidence to support any claim it sold well.

I never said 6th sold badly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You cannot state, categorically, that 6th edition was replaced solely because it sold badly. You cannot even point to sales fogures for "6th edition", or at least you havent - do you have numbers comparing 6th edition rulebook / core set sales to 5th? 4th?

I didn't state anything categorically, I said that every shred of evidence points to the fact that 6th edition definitely wasn't popular and didn't sell very well.

If you or lobbywatson have any evidence that contradicts that, then by all means, put it forward.

 Blacksails wrote:
Then by what metric of 'sold well' are you going by?

I think its perfectly reasonable to say that 6th sold okay, or average, or good enough, but there's also no evidence to support any claim it sold well.

I never said 6th sold badly.

Why is it reasonable to say it sold ok? What numbers are you basing that on?

I havent said it sold very well - that was another poster, further up. I'm just trying to point out that supposition led arguments, mainly from phantom, dont really advance anything, especially when they are presented as factual.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Then by what metric of 'sold well' are you going by?

I think its perfectly reasonable to say that 6th sold okay, or average, or good enough, but there's also no evidence to support any claim it sold well.

I never said 6th sold badly.

Why is it reasonable to say it sold ok? What numbers are you basing that on?

I havent said it sold very well - that was another poster, further up. I'm just trying to point out that supposition led arguments, mainly from phantom, dont really advance anything, especially when they are presented as factual.

Do you have ANYTHING to support your position? Anything at all? Or are you just trolling again?

And I'm simply disputing the claim it sold well.

Why don't we all agree we have no evidence to make any claim as to how well or poorly 6th sold and leave it at that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm just trying to point out that supposition led arguments, mainly from phantom, dont really advance anything, especially when they are presented as factual.

Yet you didn't point it out when "6th sold well" was mentioned which phantom was replying to. Seems like you have a particular agenda in your quibbles.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Then by what metric of 'sold well' are you going by?

I think its perfectly reasonable to say that 6th sold okay, or average, or good enough, but there's also no evidence to support any claim it sold well.

I never said 6th sold badly.

Why is it reasonable to say it sold ok? What numbers are you basing that on?

I havent said it sold very well - that was another poster, further up. I'm just trying to point out that supposition led arguments, mainly from phantom, dont really advance anything, especially when they are presented as factual.

Do you have ANYTHING to support your position? Anything at all? Or are you just trolling again?

What is my position? I dont believe I've actually stated one - what I HAVE done is point out that you dont actually have anything to back up YOUR argument that it was replaced because it sold badly. AS in, you have not supplied a single piece of pertinent evidence to support your argument.

Oh, and that isnt "trolling", so reported for rule 1.

Blacksails wrote:And I'm simply disputing the claim it sold well.

Why don't we all agree we have no evidence to make any claim as to how well or poorly 6th sold and leave it at that.

So look at the poster before accusing them next time, possibly?

That was the point I was driving home - unless you actually have comparative sales figures for 4th, 5th and 6th (otherwise you cant even hope to look for a trend. Even then its mighty dodgy) you cant really state, with much certainty, what "badly", ok" or "well" actually looks like.

 Blacksails wrote:
And I'm simply disputing the claim it sold well.

Why don't we all agree we have no evidence to make any claim as to how well or poorly 6th sold and leave it at that.

The two year life span indicates (not proves) that either 6th didn't sell well or that GW needed quick cash for their yearly report. Neither of those options are good news. I've yet to hear another theory about 6th's 2 year run.

Regardless of whether 6th sold well or not, it was replaced in two years, half the time of the average lifespan. I'm pretty sure that alone put off more players than GW ever accounted for.

These rulebooks aren't cheap and are getting more expensive. I was okay with paying $75 for a book that lasted four years...heck I was so enthusiastic about 6th I bought the Collector's Edition! Of course, it was invalidated in two years and a new rulebook with an even higher price tag was released and I finally conceded to not continuing with the current editions.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
And I'm simply disputing the claim it sold well.

Why don't we all agree we have no evidence to make any claim as to how well or poorly 6th sold and leave it at that.

The two year life span indicates (not proves) that either 6th didn't sell well or that GW needed quick cash for their yearly report. Neither of those options are good news. I've yet to hear another theory about 6th's 2 year run.

False dichotomy fallacy.

They came up witha cool new idea and wanted it to be in place NOW?

It was needed to more easily support the faster, non-codex tied release cycle they moved to during 6th?

Or, possibly, it wasnt any one item in isolation....

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
And I'm simply disputing the claim it sold well.

Why don't we all agree we have no evidence to make any claim as to how well or poorly 6th sold and leave it at that.

The two year life span indicates (not proves) that either 6th didn't sell well or that GW needed quick cash for their yearly report. Neither of those options are good news. I've yet to hear another theory about 6th's 2 year run.

Or both! The general speed (ie. half the life cycle) implies the former, the exact timing implies the latter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So look at the poster before accusing them next time, possibly?

What does the poster have anything to do with it?

I didn't see you jump on the claim 6th sold well with such energy.

 Blacksails wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So look at the poster before accusing them next time, possibly?

What does the poster have anything to do with it?

I didn't see you jump on the claim 6th sold well with such energy.

It was already being adequately attacked, just by posters making the same error in argument.

You queried what metric I was going by, when I never stated a position one way or the other - I wouldnt do, as noone here has any actual facts to back up their assertions, meaning it is mostly useless speculation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So look at the poster before accusing them next time, possibly?

What does the poster have anything to do with it?

I didn't see you jump on the claim 6th sold well with such energy.

It was already being adequately attacked, just by posters making the same error in argument.

You queried what metric I was going by, when I never stated a position one way or the other - I wouldnt do, as noone here has any actual facts to back up their assertions, meaning it is mostly useless speculation.

Well, as long as we agree there's no way to quantify how well the edition sold, I'm happy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


What is my position? I dont believe I've actually stated one - what I HAVE done is point out that you dont actually have anything to back up YOUR argument that it was replaced because it sold badly. AS in, you have not supplied a single piece of pertinent evidence to support your argument.

GW's own numbers show a decline in revenue after the release of 6th edition.
The very short lifespan of the edition itself also points to a less than stellar success.
Several retailers including Weyland and those few that post directly on Dakka also reported a drop in sales after 6th came out.
The variety of polls that indicate that the majority of Dakka users do not like 6th / 7th edition.
My own and several other posters anecdotal data indicating the vast drop in 40k players after the release of 6th edition.

Like I've said, none of this proves categorically that 6th sold poorly, but there is 0 evidence supporting the opposing view so unless you are a proponent of Kirby's "things are great if you just ignore the numbers", then by all means, put forth your own arguments...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Azrael - its not a civil offence, as it is on a commercial scale. In the UK at least it would either be counterfeit (it doesnt have to be nearly the same price - faux'lexs are counterfeit goods, but not anywhere near the price!) or, if they were very careful, just something akin to copyright. Both of these are, of course, criminal.

They should be stopped at the borders, but sadly theyre just not that big a prolem compared to counterfeit alcohol, cigarettes etc.

Online Legal Dictionary wrote:Counterfeiting is a criminal offense when it involves an intent to defraud in passing off the counterfeit item. The law contains exemptions for collector's items and items that are so obviously dissimilar from the original that a reasonable person would not consider them real. However, making a poor copy is no defense if the intent to defraud exists.

If people are going to argue about whether 6th sold well or poorly they need to define their terms of reference.

Are they talking about 6th Ed -> strictly the 6th edition products eg rulebook, cards, objective counters, etc.

Are they talking about 6th Ed -> the wider scope of whether the edition change drives ancillary sales of complimentary products eg additional models models specifically to upgrade armies to the new edition.

I would suggest that actually the answer to both is true and that 6th Ed sold "well enough" whichever of those you choose as your terms of reference, otherwise 7th Ed wouldn't have been GW's go to "holy crap the 13-14 financials are a car crash, roll out the biggest gun". (Scenery for starters, with it being integrated I bet scenery unit volumes were excellent as against historical comparatives, flyers probably too - those that were out at least).

"But the financials were not great?!" I hear you cry. Well all that means is that underlying sales - ie WHF, LotR, people generally starting new armies, new entrants/returning gamers to 40k and anything else where the buying decision is independent of the release of a new edition - were on a far faster decline than the impact of 6th Ed on the overall number. Squeeze the devotees harder because you're unable or unwilling to address the issue the portion of the customer base that is more....casual (or less invested) is shrinking at a rate of knots.