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.

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Talys wrote:

3. Despite whatever contraction, they appear to still be staying profitable.

When this is no longer true, it will be too late to save the company. You seem to have the attitude that should GW go into the red, they will have the luxury of plenty of time to turn things around. I very highly doubt this assumption.

Also, comparing 40k to sailing to justify it as a "middle" cost hobby? That's some laughable upper-class blindness there. To the rest of us peons, sailing is a hobby for the rich to the ultra-rich; calling it "high-cost" is a huge understatement. For people who want to play with their toys and play fairly with others (not just fill shelves with nice, uniform "product lines"), GW's products are high-cost, meh-value games, and the market seems to be insufficient to support them at the moment.

You greatly overestimate the cost of sailing. My neighbor bought his sailboat on eBay (no joke) for $7,500, drove down to California with a couple of friends and his wife, and sailed it back up the coast to BC. The greatest cost is moorage.

It's actually cheaper for him than *golf* and I spend more on skiing (at least, on a year to year).

You may have sailing confused with yachting. Still, considering moorage, upkeep, and that kind of thing, it will probably cost a couple thousand a year, and the occasional new sail will cost a few hundred bucks, plus insurance and the boating equivalent of AAA (emergency tow insurance).

The way I see it, 40k is a expensive game or a midrange hobby.

To your other point, many companies at someone in their existence go onto the red. It's not the end of the world (or the company).

Those companies that do go into the red activly try to fight it though and have to struggle to get back out. GW are doubling down on the policies driving them towards the red meaning either they want to be going in that direction or they don't know what the problem is or how to fix it, which will make coming back out of the red almost impossible.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Those companies that do go into the red activly try to fight it though and have to struggle to get back out. GW are doubling down on the policies driving them towards the red meaning either they want to be going in that direction or they don't know what the problem is or how to fix it, which will make coming back out of the red almost impossible.

Just because a company doesn't operate the way you think it should, or isn't targeting you as its customer doesn't mean that it will fail, though. You make a lot of assumptions; for instance, that Games Workshop will run itself into cashflow troubles that it can't bail itself out of (for instance, by Kirby and Co), or that Games Workshop is in any kind of trouble at all.

For all you know, they have a plan to shed more casual gamers and focus on more dedicated/hardcore hobbyists and gamers.

Anyways, the original question was why GW doesn't tank, and getting back to that, it's pretty obvious -- because there are people buying their products, as unbelievable as that may be for some

You know I really don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a company losing revenue for 2 or 3 years now, and sales for a while longer than that, MIGHT be heading towards cashflow problems.

Not unreasonable, but given the economy over last 8 years, not surprising. And other companies have emerged and taken a slice of the pie, so again not surprising that the market leader has shrunk in this time. If they are in the same situation in 3 years, I'd worry. Hopefully they will have turned the tide by then.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I really don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a company losing revenue for 2 or 3 years now, and sales for a while longer than that, MIGHT be heading towards cashflow problems.

Making less money is a lot different from losing money though. And you could be right!

As I was just saying in the other thread, however, a company that's headed to cashflow problems isn't likely to be releasing stuff at its 2015 cadence -- which is to say, more models than GW ever has released in a 6 month window, with tons of new stuff on the horizon, and an order of magnitude more than any other company has released in a year. Heck, more than some other companies have released, ever.

The smart move if they were in distress (or headed there) would have bene to stretch out their developed IP and expensive, prepared molds, and just launch the best this year -- Adeptus Mechanicus, Eldar, Space Marines. Heck I would even have been impressed.

They could have saved everything else for next year, nevermind all the stuff that's still coming, like Sigmar and Tau.

We're reading tea leaves though. Companies, even when they lose money, aren't necessarily in trouble. There are tons of tech companies in that boat, after all. The death spiral basically comes when a company can't reinvest in itself and isn't able to launch new stuff for people to buy.

Because, that too would be the cause of the answer the question of the OP posed, in the opposite sense -- in a post mortem, if the question were, "What made GW Financially Unviable and Finally Tank?" the answer would be obvious: "Nobody bought their stuff".

There's only so much money they can continue to make less of before their costs overtake their revenue though. Profit has been falling at quite a rate, and with it all going into dividends (and some) they don't have a huge buffer to handle going red.

 JamesY wrote:
Not unreasonable, but given the economy over last 8 years, not surprising. And other companies have emerged and taken a slice of the pie, so again not surprising that the market leader has shrunk in this time. If they are in the same situation in 3 years, I'd worry. Hopefully they will have turned the tide by then.

I think they'll be in the red before 3 years are up, unless they turn things round (which they show no sign of doing).

They've only managed to stay in the black this long by savage cost cutting, but I think they are running out of things to cut without doing themselves real damage (foreign HQ's are gone, staff are down to skeleton levels, stores are moving to cheap rent locations, foreign events are gone, Games Day has been vastly reduced, magazine quality is gone, big name designers are almost all gone).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
You greatly overestimate the cost of sailing. My neighbor bought his sailboat on eBay (no joke) for $7,500, drove down to California with a couple of friends and his wife, and sailed it back up the coast to BC. The greatest cost is moorage.

That's approximately 3 months post-tax salary for the average adult wage in the UK, and about my annual mortgage payment. Sure, it's pretty cheap for sailing but it's well out of the hobby budget for most of the wargaming market, and that's before you even factor in moorage, insurance & maintenance.

I'd assume most hobby budgets are in the $50-200 a month range, which means the boat alone would be 150-38 months hobby budget for the average hobbyist. How is that not an expensive hobby? It pales in comparison to Ferrarri launching, but it's pretty expensive compared to toy soldiers.

 Talys wrote:
if the question were, "What made GW Financially Unviable and Finally Tank?" the answer would be obvious: "Nobody bought their stuff".

But surely you understand that it doesn't have to be "nobody" (or whatever small number counts as infinitesimal in this context)... it only has to be "consistently less than enough" for a relatively small handful of years.

Herzlos wrote:They've only managed to stay in the black this long by savage cost cutting, but I think they are running out of things to cut without doing themselves real damage (foreign HQ's are gone, staff are down to skeleton levels, stores are moving to cheap rent locations, foreign events are gone, Games Day has been vastly reduced, magazine quality is gone, big name designers are almost all gone).

I agree. In the last couple of years my area has lost all of its GWs, including one battle bunker. The nearest ones are almost an hour away (maybe a bit less with no traffic), and I live in a fairly dense urban/suburban city. I suspect the next drastic steps would be to completely withdraw all B&M stores from their furthest and weakest markets and move to direct only. That would (probably) be everyone on the Pacific (East Asia, Australia, NA West Coast, etc).

Herzlos wrote:That's approximately 3 months post-tax salary for the average adult wage in the UK, and about my annual mortgage payment. Sure, it's pretty cheap for sailing but it's well out of the hobby budget for most of the wargaming market, and that's before you even factor in moorage, insurance & maintenance.

I'd assume most hobby budgets are in the $50-200 a month range, which means the boat alone would be 150-38 months hobby budget for the average hobbyist. How is that not an expensive hobby? It pales in comparison to Ferrarri launching, but it's pretty expensive compared to toy soldiers.

Well, that was his point; "sailing is expensive -> ergo 40k prices are mid-range." I was arguing that sailing is expensive enough to be considered a hobby for the very upper class. Although I'd admit I was getting some overlap from yachting, I feel like sailing is pretty damned expensive and not a good metric by which to judge 40k as "mid-range".

You don't have to buy a boat to enjoy sailing though. I learned to sail for the grand cost of about £50.

I'm a long, long way from being remotely upper class or wealthy. I just joined a club when I was young, and got quite a lot of sailing out of it.

I'm guessing many on here have spent more than £7500 on a car, when you could have easily bought a cheaper motor?

I'd agree that this hobby is pretty mid range - The costs soon rack up if you want to have multiple armies, a good board, plenty terrain etc etc. Like anything though, it can be done on the cheap, or you could spend a fortune.

Herzlos wrote:
There's only so much money they can continue to make less of before their costs overtake their revenue though. Profit has been falling at quite a rate, and with it all going into dividends (and some) they don't have a huge buffer to handle going red.

 JamesY wrote:
Not unreasonable, but given the economy over last 8 years, not surprising. And other companies have emerged and taken a slice of the pie, so again not surprising that the market leader has shrunk in this time. If they are in the same situation in 3 years, I'd worry. Hopefully they will have turned the tide by then.

I think they'll be in the red before 3 years are up, unless they turn things round (which they show no sign of doing).

They've only managed to stay in the black this long by savage cost cutting, but I think they are running out of things to cut without doing themselves real damage (foreign HQ's are gone, staff are down to skeleton levels, stores are moving to cheap rent locations, foreign events are gone, Games Day has been vastly reduced, magazine quality is gone, big name designers are almost all gone).

I think you overstate things.

If there was any real problems they can cut retail locations not just relocate, reduce staff, R&D, Design studio, out source manufacture, liquidise assets (they have lots - total equates to over £60M), cut overhead/HQ costs, cease dividend payments etc.

Given these possibilities I don't see how GW will announce a loss of margin in the foreseeable future and that's just cost.

Re Revenue I see the recent boost in 40k release as a prudent move to allow them to cover the end of the Hobbit franchise and a revamping of WFB. Assuming Age of Sigmar is a modest success they might hope to move back to a revenue increase position in the next reporting period. Following this up with a revived Epic (yeah that's just me wishlisting ) and it could be all gravy.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:

Spoiler:

You don't have to buy a boat to enjoy sailing though. I learned to sail for the grand cost of about £50.

I'm a long, long way from being remotely upper class or wealthy. I just joined a club when I was young, and got quite a lot of sailing out of it.

I'm guessing many on here have spent more than £7500 on a car, when you could have easily bought a cheaper motor?

I'd agree that this hobby is pretty mid range - The costs soon rack up if you want to have multiple armies, a good board, plenty terrain etc etc.

Like anything though, it can be done on the cheap, or you could spend a fortune.

Indeed!

Many on here seem to be in the 30+ bracket. Although I baulk at certain individual prices based upon my own perception of worth/quality at this point in my life (39) wargaming isn't at all expensive in the round. If you have kids then you know what true expense is, if you don't have kids at this point then you will have a surplice of disposable income anyway.

Also sailing really isn't the preserve of the wealthy as a trip to any sailing club will show.

 notprop wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
There's only so much money they can continue to make less of before their costs overtake their revenue though. Profit has been falling at quite a rate, and with it all going into dividends (and some) they don't have a huge buffer to handle going red.

I think you overstate things.

If there was any real problems they can cut retail locations not just relocate, reduce staff, R&D, Design studio, out source manufacture, liquidise assets (they have lots - total equates to over £60M), cut overhead/HQ costs, cease dividend payments etc.

Given these possibilities I don't see how GW will announce a loss of margin in the foreseeable future and that's just cost.

Maybe I do, but all of those things you mention will hurt GW a lot more. They ceased a dividend payment and took a huge stock hit. Retail staff is as low as it can go without going part time in locations, and they'll be stuck in a lot of leases so can't just drop retail (though I'd argue it's what they need to do).

There's definitely things they can do to maintain profit, but it's all as part of a managed decline. They could save a fortune by moving out of the huge site at Lenton, but by the time they do that they will be pretty much doomed under the current model.

 notprop wrote:
If there was any real problems they can cut retail locations not just relocate

This is a regularly occurring myth on here, in the UK having a retail location is not like renting a house where you give a months notice and then you're out. You're tied into paying for those locations for years until a break clause comes up. You may (depending on the lease, shopping centres/malls for example would tend to have contractual penalties if you aren't open to protect the brand) be able to shut down the store so you aren't paying staff and utilities, but you'll still be on the hook for the rent and rates etc. They may be allowed to sublet if they don't want a store on that location themselves (I think this may be what happens in Harrow, as they've "popped up" a store at Christmas where they used to have a store on a number of occasions, but otherwise it's been other shops throughout the year).

I heard a rumour on the ex-employee grapevine that GW negotiated some excellent rates for some store leases many, many years ago at the price of signing long and inflexible leases, so they may have less flexibility than the average company in this matter.

I'm a Surveyor, I know of what I speak.

As you point out there are break clauses, subletting, leaving fallow, negotiated termination and more. All of these the a lesser or greater extent will reduce costs even if it is just by reducing staff and inventory costs and righting off the lease as a loss.

Having just signed a 3 year lease on a property and then having to break it 3 months later I can say categorically that it can be done.

Wow, every time we have one of these threads I learn something new.

 Quarterdime wrote:
Wow, every time we have one of these threads I learn something new.

Half the reason I like these threads.

I don't have too much more to add beyond what's already been said, props to Thud, bdix, Talys, TheAuldGrump, Eggs, Baragash, and notprop for some pretty on-point and insightful posts.

Regarding the sculpts, that's a grey area when it comes to whether you like the new aesthetics or not. It's impossible to use one's own judgment and feelings about an aesthetic alone to determine its impact, either positively or negatively, on your sales performance. It's like saying that white cars sell better than black without statistical evidence. You'd need concrete market data for that, which we don't have (I don't know if geedubs has this either, but probably not!) But from a technical standpoint, the sculpts have increased in quality, although some of the older die-hards like Jes Goodwin still sculpt everything by hand rather than using CAD, even when it came to symmetry. Fun fact, did you know the Eldar flyer that was released a few years back was sculpted by him and made symmetrical using hand-measurements? I couldn't believe it wasn't CADed until he showed me the original sculpt itself (this was at Enter the Citadel I think back in '12 or '13).

The idea that "big models" like Knights were made to drive revenues is a false one - Jes and the other two sculptors there had mentioned that the designs and prototype sculpts were already done some time back, but the tech to translate them into manufacturable models was lacking (Eldar got the first "knight" because they needed something between Wraithlords and Eldar Titans in terms of model silhouette sizes). Knight-sized models are to bridge the gap between the "normal" scale and the Titan-scale that FW produces.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Aesthetics aside, a 1999 plastic kit and a 2015 kit from GW don't differ in any meaningful way, yet the price is higher. For many the rules have eroded the enjoyment they get from the game, or simply various factors have driven people out so they can't get a game. Yet if they wish to keep playing they are required to buy more, more expensive, models in order to tread water, yet those models offer small, incremental, improvements over their 20 year old equivalents, in fact some people seem to be of the opinion that some of the changes (ie more greeble, more bit) are for the worse.

Ya know, Az, I love ya I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I hear this ALL THE TIME, and I dunno how people get this, man, I really don't. Compare these two:

Spoiler:

I mean, seriously?

Look at the basic space marine:

Spoiler:

This is not just "skulls and purity scrolls". A blind man with a stick could tell the one on the right is a better model, man.

I'd take the old SK every time, I bought three extras from Ebay long after I dismissed any chance of building or playing a tyranid army. Hating on them just shows a lack of taste. The new one looks okay but the old one is iconic.

It's true. The Screamer-Killer was my first Warhammer 40k model, the one I thought "I have to own that!"

 dragqueeninspace wrote:
I'd take the old SK every time, I bought three extras from Ebay long after I dismissed any chance of building or playing a tyranid army. Hating on them just shows a lack of taste. The new one looks okay but the old one is iconic.

I have a bunch of them too. And the original Tyranids (like, 50). And tons of original genestealers, enough to play an army of them. I'm not hating on them; but I am saying, the new models are *clearly* technically superior models.

If you took the models assembled but unpainted and polled 100 random people off the street, most of whom will never have heard of 40k, asking, "Which is a cooler model?" what do you think the response would be?

 Blacksails wrote:
"People have always said this, therefore they have been and always will be wrong."

Air tight argument.

Lol, who are you quoting? And here is where the politeness disappeared completely. Next time, keep it polite, motyak

He wasn't quoting anyone, he was making a comparable analogy for the comments that complaints about GW have existed for years and therefore implies that current complaints have no merit, which is a false comparison.

As compared to your comment, which is just insulting another poster.

 Talys wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:
I'd take the old SK every time, I bought three extras from Ebay long after I dismissed any chance of building or playing a tyranid army. Hating on them just shows a lack of taste. The new one looks okay but the old one is iconic.

I have a bunch of them too. And the original Tyranids (like, 50). And tons of original genestealers, enough to play an army of them. I'm not hating on them; but I am saying, the new models are *clearly* technically superior models.

If you took the models assembled but unpainted and polled 100 random people off the street, most of whom will never have heard of 40k, asking, "Which is a cooler model?" what do you think the response would be?

"Who are you? Stop bothering me!"

But seriously, if you're going to carry on this line of discussion, fine, but I never intended to, nor did I, make the comparison between plastic and metal kits, simply between older and newer plastics.

On the flip side (and I'm not targeting Blacksails or any specific person here), there are general, "GW is dying" predictions all the time.

Without specificity, the prognostications of doom are meaningless, because all good things (and even all bad things) must come to an end at some point. And with specificity, the prognosticators refuse to concede that they're wrong when their predictions don't come true, because it's coming... soon!

For example, many people have heralded the end of the world. Nostradamus predicted 1999, James Gordon Lindsay and Jerry Falwall predicted "before 2000", Jehovah's Witnesses predicted 1941, Leland Jensen predicted 1987 (Haley's Comet), and Pat Robertson predicted 1982. But the really crazy is Harold Camping who came up with a specific date in 1994, and when it didn't happen, he predicted a new date, and kept on doing that until, I think, 2011 when he finally gave up. By then a bunch of people had given away all their stuff. Yay.

My point is, eventually the Earth will come to a fiery end. In 10 months, 10 years or 10 billion years; eventually, it will happen, but WHEN matters. EVENTUALLY, Games Workshop will cease to exist. Whether that comes in 2 years or 20 years or 200 years or 2000 years matters quite a bit!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But seriously, if you're going to carry on this line of discussion, fine, but I never intended to, nor did I, make the comparison between plastic and metal kits, simply between older and newer plastics.

Well, I did put up pictures of new and old plastic legs (unpainted). I think it's pretty clear to anyone who treats the miniatures as models (rather than just tokens) that the new legs are way more sophisticated.

Also: I'm the dumb guy who keeps coming back here, when I should spend my extra time getting my blood angels painted so that I can move on to necron or admech

Herzlos wrote:
big name designers are almost all gone.

Have they? Jez, Ali, Steve, Seb, Mark, and Trish are all still there, plus plenty more fantastic sculptors. Apart from the Perrys (who had only worked on lotr for the few years before leaving) they haven't lost anyone whose absence is really noticed.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But seriously, if you're going to carry on this line of discussion, fine, but I never intended to, nor did I, make the comparison between plastic and metal kits, simply between older and newer plastics.

Well, I did put up pictures of new and old plastic legs (unpainted). I think it's pretty clear to anyone who treats the miniatures as models (rather than just tokens) that the new legs are way more sophisticated.

They are?

So they're not just slightly bigger, with some slightly different details, but still, fundamentally, a fixed pose pair of legs that you glue the torso onto?

I asked for ways they were improved not different. Where's the improved poseability? Where's the spruless design, or elimination of mould lines? Where's the multi colour kit, so they can look ok on the table without paint? Where's the ball in socket shoulders?

Bigger and different =\= better.

You want to convince me, show me how the new Tac Squad is better than the last one, without using terms like "more greeble" and "more bits." You're so focussed on the new hat, you're not seeing that a 2015 Marine goes together essentially the same way as an RTB01 one does.

Az, forget about the size difference (I took that picture originally to demonstrate how much space marines grew). Look at the detail on one leg, and then the other. In the RT legs, there are no details sculpted on. In the 2015 legs, there are lots of details. Compare the details on joints, the armored plates, et cetera.

If you cannot appreciate the difference between those two legs, you should just buy cheaper miniatures, because plastic detail doesn't matter to you.

Also: Devastators and Assault Marines now have 2-part, posable legs. There are no HIPS miniatures that don't have mold lines. Using the system of 2-part molds, this is impossible.



Here are your posable legs (top row):



Ball sockets in shoulders make no sense for models that require 2-handed weapons, because the left hand must match the right. Instead, you have a variety of arm poses for left/right that mate. Each 2-handed kit comes with about 4 pairs of 2H poses, and then a 3 or so 1H that can be mixed and matched. Some of the 2H poses can also be turned into semi-1H poses (like reloading a magazine), something that wasn't around in older kits.

If you want to speak of how models have generally advanced, just look at some fancier kits. I was talking strictly about space marines to compare apples to apples.

 JamesY wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
big name designers are almost all gone.

Have they? Jez, Ali, Steve, Seb, Mark, and Trish are all still there, plus plenty more fantastic sculptors. Apart from the Perrys (who had only worked on lotr for the few years before leaving) they haven't lost anyone whose absence is really noticed.

No? Juan maybe? Plus Aly, Trish and Jes are the only ones I recognise from first names only, and one shouldn't underestimate the loss of the Perrys.

Also "designers" extends beyond "sculptors" so I guess you can throw the likes of Rick and Alessio into the mix too. Plus Mike McVey must have been an undoubted creative force.

Then what about all the other sculptors and designers who, not so very many years ago would probably inevitably had to have worked for GW for at least some of their career to earn a living who now are doing really well out there in independent freelance world? One shouldn't just note who they've lost, one should also consider those they've never had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Az, forget about the size difference (I took that picture originally to demonstrate how much space marines grew). Look at the detail on one leg, and then the other. In the RT legs, there are no details sculpted on. In the 2015 legs, there are lots of details. Compare the details on joints, the armored plates, et cetera.

If you cannot appreciate the difference between those two legs, you should just buy cheaper miniatures, because plastic detail doesn't matter to you.

Also: Devastators and Assault Marines now have 2-part, posable legs. There are no HIPS miniatures that don't have mold lines. Using the system of 2-part molds, this is impossible.

So your argument stands on some grooves etched into the plates over a period of what, 30 years? To justify a price rise of how much in real terms?

Like I said, Malibu Stacey has a new hat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, I did ask for a comparison between the 2004 and 2012 kits.

 bdix wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
"People have always said this, therefore they have been and always will be wrong."

Air tight argument.

Lol, who are you quoting? I can make up words too! "I'm blacksails and I like to huff glue!"

No one.

However, the resemblance to a post you made is entirely coincidental.

Your post, boiled down, said exactly that. If you'd like to clarify, redact, or support your point with more than just 'People have always said this about and they've been wrong', feel free, otherwise, this thread isn't for you.

Now I'm off to huff glue, thank you.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
big name designers are almost all gone.

Have they? Jez, Ali, Steve, Seb, Mark, and Trish are all still there, plus plenty more fantastic sculptors. Apart from the Perrys (who had only worked on lotr for the few years before leaving) they haven't lost anyone whose absence is really noticed.

No? Juan maybe? Plus Aly, Trish and Jes are the only ones I recognise from first names only, and one shouldn't underestimate the loss of the Perrys.

Also "designers" extends beyond "sculptors" so I guess you can throw the likes of Rick and Alessio into the mix too. Plus Mike McVey must have been an undoubted creative

I never said people hadn't left, just that it wasn't the case that hardly any big names were left. But, people moaned about the work Rick and Alessio did just as much as they are now moaning about what Robin and Phil do. The Perry's needed to do their own thing, so that is less gw's loss, more historical wargamers gain. As for Mike, yes the way he painted over 25 years ago completely set the standard for the whole industry (perhaps no surprise he has become an avid photographer) but what did gw loose when he left? He'd stopped painting eavy metal, couldn't sculpt well enough for the requirements, and was fed up of making dioramas. Time has shown that he also isn't great at creating rules. Yes they have lost great people, but new talent has replaced them (as you would expect for a 30+ yr old company).

 Azreal13 wrote:

So your argument stands on some grooves etched into the plates over a period of what, 30 years? To justify a price rise of how much in real terms?

Like I said, Malibu Stacey has a new hat.

Oh well, you don't like new stuff. What can I say

I for one am excited for new things like the Devastator and Assault marine box. You can't compare tacticals, because they weren't produced in 2014 (and it would be pointless to compare Blood Angels 2014 tacticals, since you place no value on sculpted iconography, which is what the BA kit is all about). If you wanted to, you could compare devastator 2015 versus devastator 2005 (or assault), and the difference is *huge*. I have the bits and can take a photo for you if you really don't believe me.

Is it worth a price difference of $35 -> $50 over a period of 10 years? Well, sure. If they had just increased 2% every year, they'd be $43 anyhow. So would I pay $7-8 more for a cool redesign after a decade? Bring it on, baby. What am I going to do with $8 anyhow? It's the price of a burger, fries and drink at McDonald's.