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.

Hero606v2 wrote:
Since October I've bought Archaon, Bloodthirster, Celestant Prime, Verminlord, Carnosaur, Engine of the Gods, Zombie Dragon, Frostheart Phoenix, Stormfiends and several others.
Guess I'm bucking the trend!

Then you are a perfect costumer for GW as its policy is to produce miniatures for collectors.

Sqorgar wrote:It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table.

I know a few hobbyists who say that the most enjoyable minis to paint are those with fairly flat or plain areas, and without a lot of extraneous details to fiddle with. I can't disagree too strongly. It's something I try to keep in mind with my own humble efforts, and what I consider one of the biggest compliments I've been paid, for one of my few sculpts that managed to get near a mould.

A horse is basically a solid color.

Nope. Even GW once put out painting articles showing the possible variety in 'bog-standard' horses.

From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

In a mass wargame, maybe. But you could argue that's part of the point. In a skirmish wargame...?

Well, as I and others have already said about the varanguard: they're so cluttered that from a distance, one blends in and loses it's shape and definition by itself.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

Quite possibly the biggest pike of gak I've read on the internet today.

I assume sir, you work for GW and are the art director behind such fantastic design ideas as skull acne, armour with so many spikes you can't move, maybe even chain flail axes...?

Thanks. Thanks so much.

/sigh

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Whale is a common term used in gaming industry (especially pay to play/freemium/mobile games) to describe consumes who pay the bulk of the money in the economy. Versus the minnows. I doubt he meant it as an insult. In most games of that type a small percentage of the consumers pay the vast bulk of the money, and most players don't pay at all, or only dip their toes in the water.

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

puree wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

sales have been going down for several years straight. Their revenues have been sliding around 3% a year if I recall in spite of dramatic cost cutting. And when your sales are dropping in a market (tabletop war gaming and board games) that is growing, you're doing something wrong.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.

Quite possibly the biggest pike of gak I've read on the internet today.

I assume sir, you work for GW and are the art director behind such fantastic design ideas as skull acne, armour with so many spikes you can't move, maybe even chain flail axes...?

Thanks. Thanks so much.

/sigh

Yeah on recent GW minis I've been hating how little room there is to get good blends and transitions going. Freehand isn't really my thing but it's also hindered by it. I'd much rather take a regular horse and introduce some exaggerated shadows and highlights than have it a single colour broken up by random things popping out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

Sales have in fact been down for several years in a row now (probably closer to a decade here in Oz...). At this point it is quite consistent and GW have only been maintaining profits by cutting costs to the bone.

 argonak wrote:

Davor wrote:

pox wrote:GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.

GW surpassed it. The proof is their sales are down. GW doesn't make as much anymore since there are not as many people buying as they use to. So I would say they have passed the line for the "common gamer" and now seem to deal with not gamers but "collectors.

There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.

Really? Name calling?

Whale is a common term used in gaming industry (especially pay to play/freemium/mobile games) to describe consumes who pay the bulk of the money in the economy. Versus the minnows. I doubt he meant it as an insult. In most games of that type a small percentage of the consumers pay the vast bulk of the money, and most players don't pay at all, or only dip their toes in the water.

I doubt that is true in tabletop wargaming because nearly everyone owns at least one rulebook and an army, and if they've got an army, they probably have a set of tools and paints, etc.

 jonolikespie wrote:

puree wrote:


If sales are down (I can't be bothered to follow such things, but I'll take your word) then it would be evidence, not proof. Sales could be down for a number of reasons.

Sales have in fact been down for several years in a row now (probably closer to a decade here in Oz...). At this point it is quite consistent and GW have only been maintaining profits by cutting costs to the bone.

Quite possibly true, and GW are possibly doing something wrong. I'm just saying it is logically flawed to say the price rises are beyond some ceiling is proved by falling sales. Falling sales may point at that, equally it may point at something else, with the continuing price rises being a reaction to continuing falling sales, and not the cause, as they try to maintain profit on less sales. Or just totally unrelated or whatever. Causation/correlation.

If there is more evidence then it may be closer to being proven?, but that would be a due to a larger body of evidence, not falling sales on its own.

Aren't sales down less in the 6 months of AOS being released than when 8th launched?

Hero606v2 wrote:
Aren't sales down less in the 6 months of AOS being released than when 8th launched?

Not a clue, 8th was 2010 according to wikipedia (I can't remember the year, I assume they are right), but GW's investors relations page only goes back to 2012/2013 as far as I could tell. They don't really break down what sales are coming from what product lines though anyway.

There isn't a person here that can answer that question with any absolute fact because none of us have sales data.

2010 was a very rough year for GW games too because when 8th dropped there was also a lot of rage due to random terrain and random charges being introduced.

We lost a good 75% of our fantasy community that year to warmachine.

2015 is similar to 2010 in that regard (we also lost 75% of our fantasy community this year where I am to AoS)

auticus wrote:
There isn't a person here that can answer that question with any absolute fact because none of us have sales data.

2010 was a very rough year for GW games too because when 8th dropped there was also a lot of rage due to random terrain and random charges being introduced.

We lost a good 75% of our fantasy community that year to warmachine.

2015 is similar to 2010 in that regard (we also lost 75% of our fantasy community this year where I am to AoS)

Which would tell most companies to quit rebooting their rules, but GW is infamously dense. Tweaks are fine but radical changes to the core rules without working existing customers into the concepts and getting "buy-in" for the changes just results in hurt feelings and lost sales. Companies like PP engaged the community and made them part of the experience when they went from version 1 to 2 but GW is completely siloed to the point where customers appear to be a later afterthought.

I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

True but my point was/is that customers who feel appreciated and feel that they are receiving a good quality product and experience for their money are more resistant to price pressures. Price elasticity is still a thing. GW hit the barrier several years ago, went beyond it and continues to travel beyond the point where the majority of their customers were comfortable with spending for their product. I believe this is the direct result in both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are willing/able to spend....among other core issues.

 agnosto wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
No matter how premium your product is (or how much you think it should be priced at), you must reconsider your pricing policing if you are effectively losing a considerable number of customers that were previous buying from you due to overpricing your products in the last few years.

No amount of customer care can cope with that.

True but my point was/is that customers who feel appreciated and feel that they are receiving a good quality product and experience for their money are more resistant to price pressures. Price elasticity is still a thing. GW hit the barrier several years ago, went beyond it and continues to travel beyond the point where the majority of their customers were comfortable with spending for their product. I believe this is the direct result in both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are willing/able to spend....among other core issues.

I apologize if I gave the idea that I had missed the point. I do agree with what you are saying - what I mean is that even with such a good customer care and relations, the current pricing makes it simply impossible for a lot of previous players to purchase as much as before (if at all in a few cases). I would love to be able to purchase as many models as I did back in 2009/10, but it's just not possible with how the prices have hiked - and in this I can easily push aside any disdain I may have for GW as a company. I really like my HE/DA... but it's just gone out of my wallet's league now.

As you said this situation is indeed the direct result of both not knowing who their customers really are and how much they are able to spend for the products - and this seems to be something GW clearly isn't interested in knowing...

 agnosto wrote:

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Apple never interacted with their customers either. Every year, Apple fans would look forward to the two press conferences they would have, gnawing on rumors of all sorts of amazing things coming, only to get a new model MacBook that is thinner, lighter, has longer battery, and a new color brushed metal exterior. Secrecy, absentee customer relations, vertically integrated production, premium product line, their own retail stores - Games Workshop is basically Apple in every way that matters, except one.

The reason why it works for Apple and not GW is largely because Steve Jobs was so charismatic, he could sell ice cream to an Eskimo. Thinner? Lighter? Longer battery? Holy crap! I need it! But Tim Cook is decidedly less so, and Apple's keynotes have been getting less and less impressive every year. Jobs could've sold the iWatch to a fifth dimensional being with no concept of the passage of time.

GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices, and that can absolutely happen, but having such high prices before customer loyalty will be an uphill battle.

It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

No one has bottomless pockets, remember that.

If things keep going as they are, it really is only a matter of time before even the most hardcore GW fans simply become unable to purchase the models from a financial point of view (or is it economical? I can never remember).

Edit: Besides, we keep getting into these schisms between "us" and "them" (whoever those parties are), when deep down we really all are the same - we are all wargamers and hobbyists. *Sparkles fairy dust everywhere*

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

Money isn't the only cost in buying new models. It's cheaper to buy models in an ecosystem you already exist in than it is to change game systems, find new players, learn new rules, and build new armies. For instance, the Start Collecting Seraphon set fits into my Stormcast army/table as is, while starting a different game would require months of time and hundreds of dollars. In that way, you could say that the Seraphon box is ONLY $85.

 Sqorgar wrote:
GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices,

How?

What have they done to build goodwill with their customers in the last years? If anything, haven't they doubled down on secluding themselves from the outside world and shun any contact with the customers whatsoever?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Apple never interacted with their customers either. Every year, Apple fans would look forward to the two press conferences they would have, gnawing on rumors of all sorts of amazing things coming, only to get a new model MacBook that is thinner, lighter, has longer battery, and a new color brushed metal exterior. Secrecy, absentee customer relations, vertically integrated production, premium product line, their own retail stores - Games Workshop is basically Apple in every way that matters, except one.

The reason why it works for Apple and not GW is largely because Steve Jobs was so charismatic, he could sell ice cream to an Eskimo. Thinner? Lighter? Longer battery? Holy crap! I need it! But Tim Cook is decidedly less so, and Apple's keynotes have been getting less and less impressive every year. Jobs could've sold the iWatch to a fifth dimensional being with no concept of the passage of time.

GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices, and that can absolutely happen, but having such high prices before customer loyalty will be an uphill battle.

There's more to it than simply presenting product. The customer experience goes all the way through Apple's stores; you walk-in there are people who help you with products, answer questions, etc. Walk into a GW store, there's one person who pushes product that you may or may not be interested in ("Oh, you like Space Marines, well, buy these Firewarriors, they're just like Space Marines but without the armor, toughness, etc."). "Geniuses" in Apples stores are generally very helpful without being pushy. That's an example.

 Zywus wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
GW has damaged customer loyalty, but not irreversibly so. I think they are trying to build good will with customers without having to drop their prices,

How?

What have they done to build goodwill with their customers in the last years? If anything, haven't they doubled down on secluding themselves from the outside world and shun any contact with the customers whatsoever?

* The return of Specialist Games
* Online sales, loyalty rewards, cheaper start collecting boxes
* Actually asking for input for the Warhammer TV advent calendar painting videos
* Free rules for AoS
* Actual customer interaction through email and facebook
* Showing and talking about new products more than a week in advance.
* Video play through of Betrayal at Calth with GW employees (also, plastic 30k)

GW has made a bunch of moves recently that were out of character that has spawned many discussions about whether the new CEO is turning things around for the company - while also selling $165 Archaon models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

There's more to it than simply presenting product. The customer experience goes all the way through Apple's stores; you walk-in there are people who help you with products, answer questions, etc. Walk into a GW store, there's one person who pushes product that you may or may not be interested in ("Oh, you like Space Marines, well, buy these Firewarriors, they're just like Space Marines but without the armor, toughness, etc."). "Geniuses" in Apples stores are generally very helpful without being pushy. That's an example.

I'm in a city with neither a GW store nor an Apple store, so I have to assume that those stores don't represent the totality of the customer experience. If anything, as someone who developed iOS apps, my personal interactions with Apple were anything but pleasant, but GW has had outstanding customer service. I had some broken parts in my AoS starter, emailed them, and had replacements in my hands two days later. They also sent me a burlap sack with an online order, and I hear current online orders come with wound counters.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Filch wrote:
It really doesn't matter if they do because you people with deep pockets keep buying GW stuff.

Money isn't the only cost in buying new models. It's cheaper to buy models in an ecosystem you already exist in than it is to change game systems, find new players, learn new rules, and build new armies. For instance, the Start Collecting Seraphon set fits into my Stormcast army/table as is, while starting a different game would require months of time and hundreds of dollars. In that way, you could say that the Seraphon box is ONLY $85.

Yep.

I can buy lots of GW miniatures or I can sock money away into my other hobby (investing) which actually generally earns more money over time. It's all perceived value; the model may look nice but I only am able to play the games several times per year due to work and family responsibilities and certainly don't have ample time to paint so my mad money generally goes into my stock portfolio instead these days.

Today's GW stock is about 545.50 pence per share (5.46 pounds). Let's say each share earns 20 pence per share (July). You could get about 10 shares of GW stock for the price of one of the new year new army bundles which would have earned you 200 pence (2 pounds). If I buy the equivalent of one of these bundles each month, I would have 600 pounds in stock by the end of 1 year or about 110 shares which would net me 2,198 pence or about 22 pounds per year plus the value of the stock. One or more years of delayed gratification would result in me being able to buy quite a bit of merch each year with just the dividends. Note that this assumes all things being equal.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Your general point about customer satisfaction is absolutely correct, of course. I didn't stop buying just because of the cost, it was also the fact that the rules were going to what I thought was a place I didn't want to follow them. I might have bought the new, unsatisfactory rules if they were a lot cheaper, or if GW had actually improved the rules, I would have been more likely to pay more for them. Beyond those factual points there is a more tenuous psychological satisfaction -- brand loyalty -- which isn't really based on rational factors. What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

I think the brand disloyalty was already there. If anything, GW games were begrudgingly played and the WHFB cancellation was the final nail in the coffin. I wouldn't say it was sudden either, as even outsiders like me were well aware of GW's popular opinion before AoS was ever announced. Frankly, I don't think people hated GW more. They already hated GW. They just started to hate AoS and AoS players too for what they saw as betrayal.

And AoS is following the typical early adoption curve. We've moved out of the "innovators" phase (less risk adverse, eager to leap on potential ideas, largely independent) and are into the "early adoption" part (starting to see community leaders emerging). AoS was a brand new game, and it does not seem to have either benefited or suffered greatly due to GW's reputation in so far as the adoption curve seems to go. The more conservative, set-in-their-ways players were never going to leap into a fledgling game with both feet. That was just never going to happen. The attitudes towards AoS players early on wouldn't have dissuaded innovators as they were perfectly okay not relying on existing community norms. It may have had negative repercussions for the whole of miniatures though, as people in the other adoption ranges would've avoided coming to the field due to the vitriol they found.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying GW stuff because of prices.

It seems unlikely that I am the only person on Earth who has done this.

I agree that prices are a primary motivator but so too is overall customer satisfaction. Customers have proven more resistant to price pressures if they feel that they are receiving a quality product and buy-in to the corporate culture. Apple is an example of this; Apples products are the same as or often inferior to competing products and are sold at a higher price, the difference is the whole culture that has been built around the company. A large part of that is that customers feel that they are receiving a quality product (even though the components are the same or worse when compared to competitors' products) and they feel valued as a customer.

Where GW continues to fail is that they treat customers as mobile wallets who will buy whatever they produce (Merritt even stated such in a court of law) so they don't necessarily feel beholden to interact with customers in a positive way that creates more loyalty which in turn creates resistance to price pressures and greater price elasticity. By moving away from their past as a customer-friendly organization that ran world-wide campaigns, responded to customer correspondence and generally interacted with and engaged their customers, they have damaged customer loyalty which I feel is also a great contributor in regards to reduced sales volume.

Your general point about customer satisfaction is absolutely correct, of course. I didn't stop buying just because of the cost, it was also the fact that the rules were going to what I thought was a place I didn't want to follow them. I might have bought the new, unsatisfactory rules if they were a lot cheaper, or if GW had actually improved the rules, I would have been more likely to pay more for them. Beyond those factual points there is a more tenuous psychological satisfaction -- brand loyalty -- which isn't really based on rational factors. What GW are suffering with the AoS backlash is a sudden, massive wave of brand disloyalty.

Very, very true. They lost me when they switched to hardback army books and just a rehash of the fluff in each one all with a shiny new, larger price tag. I can tolerate expensive models, I can tolerate expensive rules (all compared to competitors), what I am incapable of tolerating is both of those and generally shoddy rules for a game. That and being asked to buy another $50 ($80 for the main rulebook) book 1 year to 1 1/2 years after the release of the last one; if nothing else, it's just wasteful.