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.

morgoth wrote:
Also, who the feth is Hanlon, it's supposed to be Occam's Razor. Did that Hanlon guy steal it ?

Hanlon's Razor is a different tool. "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed on every claim you just made about GW's pricing. Do you actually have any proof that they can go lower or are you just making assumptions without knowing what the actual costs look like?

Their cost of sales (what it costs to develop and manufacture their products) is about a quarter of the RRP before tax.

So yes, there's plenty of headroom, not to mention that if they started acting in a manner that didn't piss so many people off the increase in volume could well off set any reduction in prices with interest.

That's not an unreasonable ratio though. Financially that's actually fairly sound and allows them enough overhead to make new product lines without needing a loan.

Also remember COGS doesn't reflect how much money is flowing out of the business expense wise. So just because it's 1/4 price doesn't mean anything on it's own.

It's an irrelevant ratio at best.

GW's sales mostly happen at reseller discounts from 35% to 55% (or more ?) and not RRP.

40% on stock items, ~25% on direct only iirc.

 Paradigm wrote:

vipoid wrote:
Well, it might help if they tried to make new editions and codices better than previous ones, as opposed to just 'different' (or, in several cases, worse).

Honestly, this mindset is a huge part of the issue (and note I'm not directing this as you, it's just a general statement). The expectation that each ediion be more powerful and constant gnashing of teeth when it isn't only perpetuate the cycle of feeling the 'need for a new codex'. Look at all the books post-Eldar; people have complained they can't take on the most obviously unbalanced build in the game (Serpent Spam) and therefore must be terrible, before realising that, on the whole they are pretty well balanced against everything else. Remove Triptide and Serpent Spam, and a couple of Demon builds, and the game is pretty damn close to balanced. The new books shouldn't be able to take on Serpent Spam, as that is a product of huge imbalance, and having every book able to fight it only makes the issue worse.

This is what has me worried about the new Crons, actually. Until last week, as I said, there were only a few outlying issues with balance, which would be very easy to account for. Now, though, with the huge 'praise' for the power of the Necrons book, I can't help but fear we are back to that cycle once again.

The 7th codices have been more in line with balance than power. Also, time will tell, but I've yet to see a truly OP Necron list, other than Wraith spam, who can still be ID'ed by S 10 IIRC.

My hope was that after making the eldar codex especially, and the tau codex unbalanced, they would realize this kind of power was bad for the game and tone it down. And for a while they did, nids as a standalone codex are a shadow of their former selves, orks are way toned down.....then they lost their minds and printed the necron codex. Now it dosent even matter if they go over the eldar and tau codex again, because this thing will still be sitting here, ready to ruin casual fun with its shooty army and BEST point for point assault units in the entire game in flayed ones, and wraiths.

Nobody uses wraiths, better bump their toughness to 5! Seriously who was this stupid?

Dark Ekdar are looking good in a Wraith meta.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed on every claim you just made about GW's pricing. Do you actually have any proof that they can go lower or are you just making assumptions without knowing what the actual costs look like?

Their cost of sales (what it costs to develop and manufacture their products) is about a quarter of the RRP before tax.

So yes, there's plenty of headroom, not to mention that if they started acting in a manner that didn't piss so many people off the increase in volume could well off set any reduction in prices with interest.

That's not an unreasonable ratio though. Financially that's actually fairly sound and allows them enough overhead to make new product lines without needing a loan.

Also remember COGS doesn't reflect how much money is flowing out of the business expense wise. So just because it's 1/4 price doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Yes, yes it does.

GW are manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer combined. They include (again, this is outlined in their report) the costs associated with manufacturing their product in their CoS figure. As of 2012 (I think, the last year or two certainly) they also began to include development costs in that figure.

Therefore, we can get a fair and reasonable estimate of their gross margin by calculating CoS as a percentage of their total revenue. Is it precise? Probably not. Is it consistently the same across everything they sell? Almost categorically not. It is, however, a reasonable average for the purposes of analysis.

We also know their net profit, because they tell us. The balance of revenue, ie. total revenue - (CoS +Net Profit) is their further costs not associated with the design and production of product. This is a substantial amount, no small amount of which is spent on the shops, and why, although I acknowledge it's a tough proposition to manoeuvre out of at this point, dropping retail and supporting independents might have been a better choice, or at least would have been in 1995.

But, to try and tie this somewhere back on topic, the current state of 40K is the same as the future state of 40K, which is they will continue to try and keep people on a treadmill of updates, whether that be supplements, campaigns or codexes - most likely codexes because that's probably what most players will feel are the least optional - because that's the only thing they have going for them right now and they can't afford to stop.

 Paradigm wrote:

Honestly, this mindset is a huge part of the issue (and note I'm not directing this as you, it's just a general statement). The expectation that each ediion be more powerful and constant gnashing of teeth when it isn't only perpetuate the cycle of feeling the 'need for a new codex'. Look at all the books post-Eldar; people have complained they can't take on the most obviously unbalanced build in the game (Serpent Spam) and therefore must be terrible, before realising that, on the whole they are pretty well balanced against everything else. Remove Triptide and Serpent Spam, and a couple of Demon builds, and the game is pretty damn close to balanced. The new books shouldn't be able to take on Serpent Spam, as that is a product of huge imbalance, and having every book able to fight it only makes the issue worse.

I think you've misunderstood what I've meant. I said nothing of power level, and wasn't talking about it.

What I mean is that new editions should be about fixing problems - rather than just making changes for the sake of being different to the previous edition. Some people may disagree, but I'd argue that 6th and 7th have caused more problems than they fixed.

With regard to the new codices, several of them have removed more units/characters than they've added - yet cost almost twice as much. If you want to encourage players to continue buying new material, removing content whilst increasing the price seems like a poor way to go about it.

 Paradigm wrote:

This is what has me worried about the new Crons, actually. Until last week, as I said, there were only a few outlying issues with balance, which would be very easy to account for. Now, though, with the huge 'praise' for the power of the Necrons book, I can't help but fear we are back to that cycle once again.

Yeah, as someone who both plays Necrons and plays against them, I'm wary about what I've seen. With the new RP rules, various buffs and considerable price reductions, a lot of their stuff is looking very strong for its cost.

But, this is mostly just speculation as I have yet to play with or against their new rules, and it's hard to precisely calculate the effect the changes will have.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed on every claim you just made about GW's pricing. Do you actually have any proof that they can go lower or are you just making assumptions without knowing what the actual costs look like?

Their cost of sales (what it costs to develop and manufacture their products) is about a quarter of the RRP before tax.

So yes, there's plenty of headroom, not to mention that if they started acting in a manner that didn't piss so many people off the increase in volume could well off set any reduction in prices with interest.

That's not an unreasonable ratio though. Financially that's actually fairly sound and allows them enough overhead to make new product lines without needing a loan.

Also remember COGS doesn't reflect how much money is flowing out of the business expense wise. So just because it's 1/4 price doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Yes, yes it does.

GW are manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer combined. They include (again, this is outlined in their report) the costs associated with manufacturing their product in their CoS figure. As of 2012 (I think, the last year or two certainly) they also began to include development costs in that figure.

Therefore, we can get a fair and reasonable estimate of their gross margin by calculating CoS as a percentage of their total revenue. Is it precise? Probably not. Is it consistently the same across everything they sell? Almost categorically not. It is, however, a reasonable average for the purposes of analysis.

We also know their net profit, because they tell us. The balance of revenue, ie. total revenue - (CoS +Net Profit) is their further costs not associated with the design and production of product. This is a substantial amount, no small amount of which is spent on the shops, and why, although I acknowledge it's a tough proposition to manoeuvre out of at this point, dropping retail and supporting independents might have been a better choice, or at least would have been in 1995.

But, to try and tie this somewhere back on topic, the current state of 40K is the same as the future state of 40K, which is they will continue to try and keep people on a treadmill of updates, whether that be supplements, campaigns or codexes - most likely codexes because that's probably what most players will feel are the least optional - because that's the only thing they have going for them right now and they can't afford to stop.

Wholesale costs aren't part of COGs. Anything not directly related to the development and manufacture of a specific product is not included in CoGs.

Is it maybe, that Xenos tend to have more power (barring Orks and Dark Eldar, and including 7th tyranids with pods) because they cannot ally do easily together like the all compatible together. I know this isn't the case for 6th armies but to me, the ability to combine all your human armies together and some of the combos is pretty powerful

 vipoid wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Honestly, this mindset is a huge part of the issue (and note I'm not directing this as you, it's just a general statement). The expectation that each ediion be more powerful and constant gnashing of teeth when it isn't only perpetuate the cycle of feeling the 'need for a new codex'. Look at all the books post-Eldar; people have complained they can't take on the most obviously unbalanced build in the game (Serpent Spam) and therefore must be terrible, before realising that, on the whole they are pretty well balanced against everything else. Remove Triptide and Serpent Spam, and a couple of Demon builds, and the game is pretty damn close to balanced. The new books shouldn't be able to take on Serpent Spam, as that is a product of huge imbalance, and having every book able to fight it only makes the issue worse.

I think you've misunderstood what I've meant. I said nothing of power level, and wasn't talking about it.

What I mean is that new editions should be about fixing problems - rather than just making changes for the sake of being different to the previous edition. Some people may disagree, but I'd argue that 6th and 7th have caused more problems than they fixed.

With regard to the new codices, several of them have removed more units/characters than they've added - yet cost almost twice as much. If you want to encourage players to continue buying new material, removing content whilst increasing the price seems like a poor way to go about it.

Ah, I get you. I thought by 'better' you meant more powerful. I agree that the removal of units is undoubtedly a bad thing, and change for the sake of it is equally bad (and why I refuse to buy new books). I'm not sure how much needs fixing, apart from the Eldar and Demons, maybe Riptides, but I do agree in that regard.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed on every claim you just made about GW's pricing. Do you actually have any proof that they can go lower or are you just making assumptions without knowing what the actual costs look like?

Their cost of sales (what it costs to develop and manufacture their products) is about a quarter of the RRP before tax.

So yes, there's plenty of headroom, not to mention that if they started acting in a manner that didn't piss so many people off the increase in volume could well off set any reduction in prices with interest.

That's not an unreasonable ratio though. Financially that's actually fairly sound and allows them enough overhead to make new product lines without needing a loan.

Also remember COGS doesn't reflect how much money is flowing out of the business expense wise. So just because it's 1/4 price doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Yes, yes it does.

GW are manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer combined. They include (again, this is outlined in their report) the costs associated with manufacturing their product in their CoS figure. As of 2012 (I think, the last year or two certainly) they also began to include development costs in that figure.

Therefore, we can get a fair and reasonable estimate of their gross margin by calculating CoS as a percentage of their total revenue. Is it precise? Probably not. Is it consistently the same across everything they sell? Almost categorically not. It is, however, a reasonable average for the purposes of analysis.

We also know their net profit, because they tell us. The balance of revenue, ie. total revenue - (CoS +Net Profit) is their further costs not associated with the design and production of product. This is a substantial amount, no small amount of which is spent on the shops, and why, although I acknowledge it's a tough proposition to manoeuvre out of at this point, dropping retail and supporting independents might have been a better choice, or at least would have been in 1995.

But, to try and tie this somewhere back on topic, the current state of 40K is the same as the future state of 40K, which is they will continue to try and keep people on a treadmill of updates, whether that be supplements, campaigns or codexes - most likely codexes because that's probably what most players will feel are the least optional - because that's the only thing they have going for them right now and they can't afford to stop. .

Wholesale costs aren't part of COGs. Anything not directly related to the development and manufacture of a specific product is not included in CoGs

And?

Not sure what your point is here, wholesale isn't a cost for GW, it's a source of revenue.

EDIT
If you're trying to say that the gross margin is different depending on if the individual item is sold at RRP or Wholesale, then yes, you're correct, but we're dealing in averages here. GW also sell more directly than they do wholesale, so any bias will be more towards items sold at RRP.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed on every claim you just made about GW's pricing. Do you actually have any proof that they can go lower or are you just making assumptions without knowing what the actual costs look like?

Their cost of sales (what it costs to develop and manufacture their products) is about a quarter of the RRP before tax.

So yes, there's plenty of headroom, not to mention that if they started acting in a manner that didn't piss so many people off the increase in volume could well off set any reduction in prices with interest.

That's not an unreasonable ratio though. Financially that's actually fairly sound and allows them enough overhead to make new product lines without needing a loan.

Also remember COGS doesn't reflect how much money is flowing out of the business expense wise. So just because it's 1/4 price doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Yes, yes it does.

GW are manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer combined. They include (again, this is outlined in their report) the costs associated with manufacturing their product in their CoS figure. As of 2012 (I think, the last year or two certainly) they also began to include development costs in that figure.

Therefore, we can get a fair and reasonable estimate of their gross margin by calculating CoS as a percentage of their total revenue. Is it precise? Probably not. Is it consistently the same across everything they sell? Almost categorically not. It is, however, a reasonable average for the purposes of analysis.

We also know their net profit, because they tell us. The balance of revenue, ie. total revenue - (CoS +Net Profit) is their further costs not associated with the design and production of product. This is a substantial amount, no small amount of which is spent on the shops, and why, although I acknowledge it's a tough proposition to manoeuvre out of at this point, dropping retail and supporting independents might have been a better choice, or at least would have been in 1995.

But, to try and tie this somewhere back on topic, the current state of 40K is the same as the future state of 40K, which is they will continue to try and keep people on a treadmill of updates, whether that be supplements, campaigns or codexes - most likely codexes because that's probably what most players will feel are the least optional - because that's the only thing they have going for them right now and they can't afford to stop. .

Wholesale costs aren't part of COGs. Anything not directly related to the development and manufacture of a specific product is not included in CoGs

And?

Not sure what your point is here, wholesale isn't a cost for GW, it's a source of revenue.

Administrative, shipping, insurance, utilitity costs for stores, payroll...all none CoGS factors that influence pricing because they cost GW money.

Why do you think I'm so in favor of them handing it off to FLGS locations in places like the US where the stores aren't doing as well?

We're paying for those stores even if we never step foot into one.

Yes - you've essentially just stated the same point as I've already made.

The issue with GW is you have costs of sales - which are an unavoidable consequence of doing business - and then all other costs. While a certain amount of these costs are unavoidable, they are more firmly within the company's ability to control.

If GW were unable to cut prices because they were dealing in a product that only allowed them a small gross margin, then fair enough. The reality is they have a product with an incredibly healthy gross margin but due to poor decisions have saddled themselves with massive overhead meaning they are somewhat backed into a corner with prices. But that's all on them.

Guys, can we please stay on topic?

Good lord.

1) This forum has rules - please endeavor to follow all of them, all of the time!

2) Please do NOT spam the Moderator Alert system. In case you don't 'see something happening', don't assume that 'nothing is happening'.

3) Of course, nothing may actually happen - again, that is one of the valid Moderator 'actions' that might...happen.

 Shadelkan wrote:
Guys, can we please stay on topic?

More on topic the game is feeling more balanced. Even with crone feeling more durable it doesn't feel like they're unfairly balanced. And yes Wraiths are strong but somehow it doesn't seem like something that is going to overrun metas. I also see tournaments moving to a "detachments must us a FOC chart" or "limit one fomation per army" if the Decurion comes across as too strong in that scene.

From a fluff standpoint the Front feel right. They're durable, slow and win by attrition more than anything and I like that they have the right feel.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
Guys, can we please stay on topic?

More on topic the game is feeling more balanced. Even with crone feeling more durable it doesn't feel like they're unfairly balanced. And yes Wraiths are strong but somehow it doesn't seem like something that is going to overrun metas. I also see tournaments moving to a "detachments must us a FOC chart" or "limit one fomation per army" if the Decurion comes across as too strong in that scene.

From a fluff standpoint the Front feel right. They're durable, slow and win by attrition more than anything and I like that they have the right feel.

On that note, do Wraiths have Eternal Warrior? Otherwise my Vindicators may see more use

The game feels more balanced to me than it's been since 5e started throwing stuff out of whack. There's still a lot of newer-model-is-better and bigger-is-better going around and it's far from perfect but you can't win by virtue of which army book you're holding as easily today as you could last edition.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
Guys, can we please stay on topic?

More on topic the game is feeling more balanced. Even with crone feeling more durable it doesn't feel like they're unfairly balanced. And yes Wraiths are strong but somehow it doesn't seem like something that is going to overrun metas. I also see tournaments moving to a "detachments must us a FOC chart" or "limit one fomation per army" if the Decurion comes across as too strong in that scene.

From a fluff standpoint the Front feel right. They're durable, slow and win by attrition more than anything and I like that they have the right feel.

On that note, do Wraiths have Eternal Warrior? Otherwise my Vindicators may see more use

Nope.

Dark Eldar and Wraithguard may see more use to help deal with them too.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Morgoth - you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're not even looking at the right part of the report.

Just for the record, I hold qualifications in business and management, I've held senior management positions in multimillion pound companies and I've been a director of my own company. While I'm not an accountant, and would freely admit there's elements of financial reports I'm less able to analyse than others, I know enough.

The report can be found here

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-15-Press-statement-final.pdf

Just for the record, you're not qualified to discuss this topic and pretending that you are in the way that you do is quite pointless.

I've read that exact statement and it states (see what I did there) 6.2M operating profit.

Which is based on 56M external revenue, 17.5M Cost of sales and 33.4M Operating Costs.

The cost of sales for a manufacturer is the cost of finished goods in its beginning inventory plus the cost of goods manufactured minus the cost of finished goods in ending inventory.

Which in simpler words means the cost of all the goods manufactured, all stocks being equal.

What that means is that it does not include any costs related to brick and mortar GW stores, customer acquisition, IP production, marketing, human resources and everything else that makes up Operating costs.




Further along the same report, you can see that there is a lot more volume going on in the trade (LGS) and retail (GW stores) than the Mail Order (about 20% of the volume, yet as much profit as the 40% of volume in trade accounts).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

The 7th codices have been more in line with balance than power. Also, time will tell, but I've yet to see a truly OP Necron list, other than Wraith spam, who can still be ID'ed by S 10 IIRC.

Of which everyone has a ton, quite enough to bypass the 3++ save and the RP due to the formation.

... I say wait and see, but if Wraith spam ends up being balanced, it will not be because of the small amount of S10 available in the game.

The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

Well.. I see a lot of QQ eldar or QQ tau. If they are going to "dumb down" these.. then poor necron players. You guys need a new codex already... Hope you didn't buy the book, as per dakka standards you need toned down. You can't disagree with this as the percentile of which necrons wins is only roughly 3%? Less eldar

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

Don't roll poorly on that Spyder's run. I mean you're giving RP not Fleet so....

And I was thinking more on the mentality of ensuring everything stays in range for a turn or two, not risking it on die rolls.

But you have a fair point, even if you're relying on luck that way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

Don't roll poorly on that Spyder's run. I mean you're giving RP not Fleet so....

And I was thinking more on the mentality of ensuring everything stays in range for a turn or two, not risking it on die rolls.

But you have a fair point, even if you're relying on luck that way.

I think you don't get it.

6+d6"-1" < 12"

The Spyder cannot be out of range at the end of turn one unless you move it in the wrong direction.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

Don't roll poorly on that Spyder's run. I mean you're giving RP not Fleet so....

And I was thinking more on the mentality of ensuring everything stays in range for a turn or two, not risking it on die rolls.

But you have a fair point, even if you're relying on luck that way.

I think you don't get it.

6+d6"-1" < 12"

The Spyder cannot be out of range at the end of turn one, that's impossible.

I get what you're saying but you're not really showing the right math for that.

Wraiths move 12" + d6" so 13-18"

Spyder moves 6" + d6" so 7-12"

That's a difference of 6"-11".

Yes, turn 1 they won't be out, but you're stringing them out quite a bit and that can leave the Spyder exposed to other threats as well.

It's a formation that really looks like it'll play best if you don't string them out too far so you can keep the Spyder better protected.

Well at least if you end up playing short edge on a table (which is something that happens to me often enough to consider it I guess).

There is a lot of easy money to be made by producing new codices and since CSM and DA were early 6th and arguably two of the least powerful, updating them would be both profitable and (probably) popular.

I see most of the 6th ed books probably only getting light updates. Rule tweaks and the occasional model. The big one I see breaking that role is Eldar who need Aspects updated to plastic.

Beyond that the only other army that NEEDS a big update is Sisters. Most of the other armies would be pretty okay with just getting updated to balance the books better.

IMO, the current tyranids are perfect

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?