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.

 Traditio wrote:
Does "chaos space marines" mean a new codex?

Greatest troll post ever!

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

Maybe with Forgeworld.

Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

 Orock wrote:
Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

Well I do agree 100%, I do have to admit that SM+Skitarii vs. orks could be interesting TBH. Maby even have the SM be Iron Hands, so you could make some cool SM bionics in plastic.

 Orock wrote:
Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

Bad question. Better is "when have they been willing to not sell what sells".

Marines are what sells. If customers aren't happy with them being elsewhere...Well buy less of them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

Bad question. Better is "when have they been willing to not sell what sells".

Marines are what sells. If customers aren't happy with them being elsewhere...Well buy less of them.

That's a simplistic view that takes no account of the differing levels of support given to each army. SM sell demonstrably better than CSM, but a decent chunk of those extra sales will be driven by the fact that since the last basic CSM infantry kit came out SM have had a full recut and then full replacement of all of their basic infantry as well as multiple faction-specific variants of basic infantry. IG are still using plastic kits for infantry from the very early oughts. Eldar are still stuck with Aspect Warriors in Finecast that were originally sculpted back in 2nd Edition.

And when GW do pay attention to the other factions, it's demonstrable that the level of success they enjoy is linked to the type of support they receive - when they bring out big, OTT kits that only add to the existing range(Orks) they might sell plenty of those specific kits, but uptake of the faction as a whole remains relatively static since all the new kits do is highlight the disparity in quality between modern kits and the much older ones the rest of the faction is stuck with; meanwhile when they put in the effort and resources to actually revamp old core units(DEldar, Tau) there's a big spike in new players buying in and older players revamping their existing armies.

Partly, SM will always sell well because they're SM, and plenty of folk love either their superficial presentation as heroic space-knights or their less obvious true nature as barbarous genetically engineered killing machines, but a good portion of the lead SM have over other factions in the sales figures is GW's deliberate lavishing of support on them in terms of both rules and models, far above what they do for other factions. "Who cares, sales is sales" seems to be the attitude of GW and their more strident apologists, but it doesn't seem to have been doing that well for them of late - without variety people get bored, and I doubt painting your Marines a different colour is sufficient variety to sustain the company.

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

Did I just imagine the whole New Coke/Classic Coke thing then?

All the information we have indicated WHFB was, in fact, a profitable line, GW just wanted it to be more profitable than it was. They evidently believed it was possible to equal 40K in revenue/profit terms with a fantasy product, and that taking a more 40K-ish approach with AoS would achieve that better/faster than giving WHFB the same level of investment and support as 40K - the fact the upcoming financial report appears to show relatively flat figures propped up by licensing from the unexpectedly(by GW) large sales of TW:WH indicates that one or both of those conclusions was overly optimistic or flat-out wrong.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

Did I just imagine the whole New Coke/Classic Coke thing then?

All the information we have indicated WHFB was, in fact, a profitable line, GW just wanted it to be more profitable than it was. They evidently believed it was possible to equal 40K in revenue/profit terms with a fantasy product, and that taking a more 40K-ish approach with AoS would achieve that better/faster than giving WHFB the same level of investment and support as 40K - the fact the upcoming financial report appears to show relatively flat figures propped up by licensing from the unexpectedly(by GW) large sales of TW:WH indicates that one or both of those conclusions was overly optimistic or flat-out wrong.

Or it shows that a well made game in a popular series (Total War) that's branched into fantasy as opposed to being historical was very successful. Don't twist facts to make them fit your narrative.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

Of course by the time they decided to scrap it it was still 3rd best selling game in USA and made profit(ie not loss)...It then started to drop because of lousy support and high prices.

tneva82 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

Bad question. Better is "when have they been willing to not sell what sells".

Marines are what sells. If customers aren't happy with them being elsewhere...Well buy less of them.

Exactly. Marines make up somewhere around 50% of sales by themselves. And I bet the reason we see them in the starter sets time after time is because they continue to sell well. I would sincerely doubt they would make a non-Marine starter set.

So is AOS death literally discontinuing AOS or is it AOS death faction?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something weird by the way, no blood bowl

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

if you dont remember the coke thing.

How about mars and the disastrous NEW MARS, that was just awful, or i dunno how about Cadbury bringing back Wispa... things return. Please stop acting like its AOS or the highway when it clearly is not. do you have sales from about 10 stores in the UK regarding warhammer?, because I do.

AOS is flagging compared to WFB sales.

People in the Uk club network are basically using 9th age or 6th ed wfb. If there is demand WFB will return you can count on it. unless gw are colossally stu... oh..

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Dark Vengeance replac. Orks + Skitarii (?)

LOL no. When have they ever had the balls to not include some kind of poster boy marine army in these?

Bad question. Better is "when have they been willing to not sell what sells".

Marines are what sells. If customers aren't happy with them being elsewhere...Well buy less of them.

Exactly. Marines make up somewhere around 50% of sales by themselves. And I bet the reason we see them in the starter sets time after time is because they continue to sell well. I would sincerely doubt they would make a non-Marine starter set.

Ofcourse, it would make more sense to put some low selling army in the starter box to give it a boost.
Anyway, marines is by far the best option for a starter box -relatively easy to paint, can be used in a straight forward easy to learn game style, make up an essential part of the lore, and also useable by by a wast part of the existing players.
Put the skitarii in the hands of a noob and get some seriously messed up kitbash abomination with details drowned in thick paint, not to mention the confusion of doctrines and weird weaponary. The poor noob would probably not know if they were the good guys or not (because they are neither!). Messed up all around.
There is a really good reason the Emprah made marines to begin with.

 Fayric wrote:
Ofcourse, it would make more sense to put some low selling army in the starter box to give it a boost.

Of course then likely it wouldn't sell nearly as well. Starters sell well because they have marines which, funnily enough, sold well from the get-go.

They didn't become poster boys because GW decided "let's make marines poster boys!". They became poster boys because they sold well from the get-go and have only continued. Players want more marines, GW is only happy to oblige. Especially when their unit sale count is dropping.

All of this talk about how AOS is falling behind in sales, and yet no one here has any actual sales figures to reference.

tneva82 wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Ofcourse, it would make more sense to put some low selling army in the starter box to give it a boost.

Of course then likely it wouldn't sell nearly as well. Starters sell well because they have marines which, funnily enough, sold well from the get-go.

They didn't become poster boys because GW decided "let's make marines poster boys!". They became poster boys because they sold well from the get-go and have only continued. Players want more marines, GW is only happy to oblige. Especially when their unit sale count is dropping.

Of course you make alot of sense, if somewhat simplified.
Also the "boost an unpopular army" really only work if the first army of the box is popular(=marines).

@nightshae007, it's referring to the death expansion for Silver Tower.

GW confirmed they have the AoS storyline and continuation planned for the next 4-5 years. So no worries on a sudden stop on the AoS awesome train.

@Auticus, what? Things being said on the internet with no supporting facts and only wild speculation? The hell you say!

 auticus wrote:
All of this talk about how AOS is falling behind in sales, and yet no one here has any actual sales figures to reference.

Ill do you a solid and post a sample of my data on Orruks shall i? ( god that name...)
The maw crusher you think would sell right? out of the 20 boxes ( that gw thrust on them one Lgs store sold 3, and none sold over 11 ), you could say over 50 percent of sales was good right? compare this to the End times big skaven Verminlord which sold out and they had to get new stock, in all but 1 of my test group, this was in the first 2 weeks of new stock mind.



Now maybe its different in the USA, it could be and id love if i could get data from US stores to do a comparison.

migooo wrote:
Now maybe its different in the USA, it could be and id love if i could get data from US stores to do a comparison.

Well in USA stores are dumping them at the loss because that's cheaper for them...

Funny how AOS defenders critizise lack of evidence yet use equally lack of evidence claiming FB was discounted because it wasn't profitable(when it was. Just wasn't selling marines level. GW wasn't even happy on 3rd best selling game. It had to sell equally much as the #1).

Wait, AOS Death? What's that mean?

 Matthew wrote:
Wait, AOS Death? What's that mean?

A faction of some sort.

EDIT: Ah, str00dles got it!

It relates to Silver Tower Warhammer Quest. Currently the plan is to release a big box expantion like silver tower but undead themed

str00dles1 wrote:
It relates to Silver Tower Warhammer Quest. Currently the plan is to release a big box expantion like silver tower but undead themed

ohh - hope we see some vampires - preferably some of Neferta's handmaidens

migooo wrote:
if you dont remember the coke thing.

Old coke sold well and was loved by all, the whole new coke debacle was based on a poorly conducted study of taste preferences. Going back to old coke made sense when they knew old coke was good. WHFB wasn't good. Stop making inane analogies.

migooo wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

if you dont remember the coke thing.

How about mars and the disastrous NEW MARS, that was just awful, or i dunno how about Cadbury bringing back Wispa... things return. Please stop acting like its AOS or the highway when it clearly is not. do you have sales from about 10 stores in the UK regarding warhammer?, because I do.

AOS is flagging compared to WFB sales.

People in the Uk club network are basically using 9th age or 6th ed wfb. If there is demand WFB will return you can count on it. unless gw are colossally stu... oh..

And where is it written that AoS sales are flagging? Besides your imagination, that is?
Nobody save those who work at the top in GWHQ knows how well it's doing. Also, WHFB has been around for decades whereas AoS has been out just shy of a year. Your comparison is moot.

 Mr Morden wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
It relates to Silver Tower Warhammer Quest. Currently the plan is to release a big box expantion like silver tower but undead themed

ohh - hope we see some vampires - preferably some of Neferta's handmaidens

I highly suspect they are going to do a plastic vampire and I am going to end up buying the expansion because I want a plastic vampire. *sigh*

Looking forward to that expansion (among many other things). I wonder what the lore will be? Best the undead guardians and main antagonist to escape the realm of death (maybe even regain life if your undead as well)?

Would love a Flesh-Eater courtier who dresses like an actual courtier. (Obviously it'd be a tattered and ragged outfit but try to tell that to the delusional cannibal )

(P.S. @Shinros, thank you so much for correcting that moron on reddit that it's flesh-eater court and not counts. )

If it Orks vs. Skitarii isn't this a problem for "new" players. Orks are pretty forgiving, but Skitarii can be pretty harsh against beginners.

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

Did I just imagine the whole New Coke/Classic Coke thing then?

All the information we have indicated WHFB was, in fact, a profitable line, GW just wanted it to be more profitable than it was. They evidently believed it was possible to equal 40K in revenue/profit terms with a fantasy product, and that taking a more 40K-ish approach with AoS would achieve that better/faster than giving WHFB the same level of investment and support as 40K - the fact the upcoming financial report appears to show relatively flat figures propped up by licensing from the unexpectedly(by GW) large sales of TW:WH indicates that one or both of those conclusions was overly optimistic or flat-out wrong.

Or it shows that a well made game in a popular series (Total War) that's branched into fantasy as opposed to being historical was very successful. Don't twist facts to make them fit your narrative.

That's not the fact that fits the narrative, it's the relatively flat figures part that indicates AoS hasn't taken off as GW hoped(the TW:WH bit merely indicates that there was plenty of life in the old gal from a fiction/IP standpoint, and is a little touch of irony). Unless of course 40K has taken a nosedive and AoS has made up the difference, that's possible. I'm not having a pop at AoS, just pointing out that there's not quite as much reason to be utterly certain WHF is dead & gone forever as some seem to think there is.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

migooo wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm completely out of the loop, but is there a realistic chance that real Warhammer could make a return? The square base game we played and loved for like thirty years?

But not loved enough to make it a profitable line? No. If you rework something because it isn't selling and the new thing doesn't sell either you don't go back to the first thing, you either try a third approach or you give it the axe it deserves.

if you dont remember the coke thing.

How about mars and the disastrous NEW MARS, that was just awful, or i dunno how about Cadbury bringing back Wispa... things return. Please stop acting like its AOS or the highway when it clearly is not. do you have sales from about 10 stores in the UK regarding warhammer?, because I do.

AOS is flagging compared to WFB sales.

People in the Uk club network are basically using 9th age or 6th ed wfb. If there is demand WFB will return you can count on it. unless gw are colossally stu... oh..

1.And where is it written that AoS sales are flagging? Besides your imagination, that is?
Nobody save those who work at the top in GWHQ knows how well it's doing. 2.Also, WHFB has been around for decades whereas AoS has been out just shy of a year. Your comparison is moot.

1. The financial report is apparently going to be slightly above what they were projecting in the previous "don't get your hopes up, investors" communique from HQ, but they've already attributed that to licensing money(ie, TW:WH). If this year's report continues the trend of the last couple that means we can only conclude either AoS is selling around the same as/slightly less than WHFB, or AoS is doing well but 40K is sliding hard(or both are marginally down and the difference was made up by the boxed games). And "don't discuss GW finances unless you know as much as GWHQ" functionally means "don't discuss GW finances", given how hard they work to obfuscate specifics in their reports there will always be an element of speculation involved, but nobody here is making any outlandish claims that AoS is dying on its arse or anything, merely that if the preview info about the report is roughly accurate then it;s likely AoS isn't meeting GW's expectations.

2. Given we've been told that most sales of GW product occurs when it's brand new and shiny, I don't know that you're making the point you thought you were there. If AoS isn't shifting at the level GW want now, it likely never will meet that expectation, unless the General's Handbook is tremendously well-received of course which isn't beyond the realms of possibility - I know several people who didn't give AoS a second look who're now at least interested in what that book will bring.