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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're bringing them back, that's official.

We've already seen provisional sculpts for Blod Bowl, and we're getting Adeptus Titanicus first, with expansions for other unit types down the line.

That's all either photographically confirmed or directly from designers in the studio.

I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

Thanks a bunch

G.A

 SolarCross wrote:


I'm not getting why you object to other people playing a version of 40k on a more rational scale?

I don't. Not sure where you would have got the idea that I did.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're bringing them back, that's official.

We've already seen provisional sculpts for Blod Bowl, and we're getting Adeptus Titanicus first, with expansions for other unit types down the line.

That's all either photographically confirmed or directly from designers in the studio.

I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

Thanks a bunch

G.A

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Hang on, are you advocating for Epic, or a smaller scaled 40K now?

Because I'm pretty sure you originally started advocating for 15mm 40K.

That was in the context of people griping about the cost of 40k for playing the "large" battles that these new formations suggest we could play at. I do think 28mm is just too big for gaming, not just from the substantial extra cost it imposes but the space it takes up on the board and in storage. As a craft hobby 28mm is ideal or indeed squad vs. squad games like Space Hulk, it is quite okay.

GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition. They wouldn't be doing business right if they were not leveraging their brand for extra dough, so whatever scale game they produce and no matter what economies of scale they can pull to lower their costs, they will always be more expensive than Warlord Games or Hawkwind Games or whoever. So the GW premium isn't the real problem with the cost of 40k, or at least it is a problem that cannot be solved by us, except by refusing pay the brand premium. Switching to a sensible gaming scale is a feasible solution to the exorbitant cost of 40k gaming even with GW's brand premium slapped all over it. It also fixes a number of other practical considerations that I already mentioned.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

It's from one of GW's open days a while back. They showed off some models for the new games, banners advertising them, etc. We don't know much about the games beyond the fact that GW is working on them, but it's official that they are.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

Cheers for this, I'll be sure to dig around for some more stuff.

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

G.A

R.E. Thanks Peregrine, I will look into their open day information

 SolarCross wrote:
GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition.

Going to have to disagree with this. GW often does have better quality than the competition. Many non-GW companies have models that aren't as nice and/or a very small range of high-quality models. And it's especially true when you look at the various third-party "not 40k" models, almost all of them are just low-quality copies of GW's ideas where the only appeal is the fact that they're cheap. So if you want the kind of stuff that GW is selling it's more of a comparison between a fast food hamburger and a burger from a nice restaurant. The nice burger is much more expensive, and arguably expensive out of proportion to the increase in price, but there's no question that it's better quality.

 SolarCross wrote:

GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition. They wouldn't be doing business right if they were not leveraging their brand for extra dough

No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

Does that give them the right to charge as much as they do? Different question entirely. I think they can cos any company can charge any price if people will still buy it; GW has no significant competitors in terms of model quality, which would drive down their prices potentially. Gaming wise? Yes. Model wise? No

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

We don't know. There was almost certainly a lack of popularity (otherwise discontinuing them would be financial suicide), but why were they less popular? Was there less demand for that kind of game, or was it because of the lack of support GW was willing to give a product line that could let you play in the 40k IP without spending as much money as their core product line demands?

 General Annoyance wrote:

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

At the time of release I'd guess they sold well enough, but then after a time everyone that would have bought it already did and then sales begin to dry up, just as another new hot thing is ready to spill out the production pipeline.

 General Annoyance wrote:
No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

It's entirely debatable. GW does have legitimate competition for the "best miniatures" title, and arguably that competition produces stuff that GW would envy. GW is in a good position quality-wise, but let's not get so far into GW apologism that anyone who favors another brand "doesn't have eyes".

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There's abstraction, and then there's a game that looks stupid because a tank that is 9" long and a walker that is 9" tall are deploying 24" away from each other

I'm all for abstraction, my understanding is most WW2 tank battles occured at 700-1000 yards, that's just an impractical scale to reproduce in a game even at 6mm scale.

But 40k whizzes past abstraction and hits the wall of absurdity. One of the many things that put me off 40k was one day walking in to a store and seeing a game that looked less like a wargame and more like a couple of babies in slapping range of each other

The thing is, a game that features both ranged and melee combat needs to either have everything close together, or allow for incredibly rapid movement.


Once you accept that 40K is essentially a fantasy game in a space opera setting, the short distances are less of an issue.

I've never had a problem with the short range of 40k nor did I say I did. I had a problem when 40k went from being a game where short ranges were just an abstraction to when it went to being comical.

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

It's entirely debatable. GW does have legitimate competition for the "best miniatures" title, and arguably that competition produces stuff that GW would envy. GW is in a good position quality-wise, but let's not get so far into GW apologism that anyone who favors another brand "doesn't have eyes".

Ok perhaps that was a little uncalled for, but genuinely I can't think of a company that can match their standards on the scale that they do. Only one that springs to mind is Victoria Miniatures, but Miss Lamb is just one person running a fairly small (but well known) business.

Trust me, I hate GW more than I love it - I just feel like it can't be denied that their level of quality is, for the most part, unmatched by any other company on the same scale. This is not to say that "GW is the best ergo all other miniatures are poor quality" - I for one think Infinity miniatures are of great design and quality (particularly when you consider they're metal sculpts too, no fancy resin)

Speaking of Resin, shouldn't we be saying that Forge World has some of the best model sculpts?

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

Cheers for this, I'll be sure to dig around for some more stuff.

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

Chicken and egg, does the game become poorly supported and ultimately discontinued because people lose interest, or do people lose interest because the game is poorly supported?

In the case of GW SG, I think it was management's failure to appreciate that stuff can have a value beyond the money it makes. Sure, if it's hurting the whole business then a discussion needs to be had, but the lack of SG opened up a bunch of niches that had been previously dominated the way 40K dominates 30mm Sci Fi, and fans of those styles of game then turned to the competition and started buying product from them. That opened a Pandora's Box GW would have been much better off keeping closed, especially as the accessibility for new manufacturers has been steadily falling in cost.

Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!) and I think the original loss of SG was a symptom of that.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Chicken and egg, does the game become poorly supported and ultimately discontinued because people lose interest, or do people lose interest because the game is poorly supported?

In the case of GW SG, I think it was management's failure to appreciate that stuff can have a value beyond the money it makes. Sure, if it's hurting the whole business then a discussion needs to be had, but the lack of SG opened up a bunch of niches that had been previously dominated the way 40K dominates 30mm Sci Fi, and fans of those styles of game then turned to the competition and started buying product from them. That opened a Pandora's Box GW would have been much better off keeping closed, especially as the accessibility for new manufacturers has been steadily falling in cost.

Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!) and I think the original loss of SG was a symptom of that.

Yes that seems like a dead end in terms of factual information; GW has made some more than odd decisions over the years, but it's difficult to attribute it to one particular factor of the company.

Going back to the point of this thread, I'd say that if financial difficulty is the underlying problem, there isn't much you can do about it. Sure a few stores online sell GW products at a discount, but ultimately it sounds like you're confined to whatever you can afford, and that something is probably a game that GW does not own.

It's funny how people who play videogames rant about how $60 is too much for a AAA title. They have nooo idea

G.A

 Azreal13 wrote:
Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!)

Oh god, I'd almost forgotten about that one. Sure is a great time to laugh about it again!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!)

Oh god, I'd almost forgotten about that one. Sure is a great time to laugh about it again!

What? We're referencing things I don't know but I'd like to.

In one of Kirby's rambles he referenced the longevity of the company vs stuff that "nobody had heard of in years" or words to that effect.

He used RPGs and Pokemon as examples...

pm713 wrote:
What? We're referencing things I don't know but I'd like to.

A while back GW's annual investor report had a bit from the CEO about how GW is built to last, unlike all those silly toy fads like Pokemon that nobody remembers. It was hilarious even back then because the report came out shortly after the latest Pokemon video game had out-sold GW's entire annual revenue in 48 hours. It really summed up GW management, staggering levels of idiocy presented as if it is the most reasonable thing ever, to an audience that is too ignorant of the gaming industry to realize how bad it is.

Wow. Kirby is a fabulous source of tips on how to look stupid it seems.

 Azreal13 wrote:
In one of Kirby's rambles he referenced the longevity of the company vs stuff that "nobody had heard of in years" or words to that effect.

He used RPGs and Pokemon as examples...

Looks like we found the culprit for GW's bad business practices

Hey has anyone heard of Pokemon GO?

G.A

 insaniak wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW don't set high prices because it costs them alot, they set them because their sales are abysmal and they have to keep profits up any means necessary.

The fact that GW's prices have always been at the upper end of the market, even when their sales were fantastic, suggests otherwise.

Past history suggests that GW sets their prices high for no reason other than because they can. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Epic would be any more affordable now than it was last time it was available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

Dropzone Commander is on a 10mm scale and even the infantry looks nice enough.

They really don't. And they look worse with an average paintjob.


For my money, anything smaller than 25mm is really only suitable for games that focus predominantly on vehicles or giant creatures, because human-sized models at those scales are featureless blobs. If you want to play infantry engagements like that, you're better off not spending all that money on miniatures and going for a game that uses tokens for units instead.

I remember when £5 got you five plastic marines, £4 got you a terminator with special weapon £9 got you a metal special character, to say their prices have always been high is not strictly true there was a time pocket money would let you buy more than paint.

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20, it all went down hill 2004 when they cancelled specialist games and turned their backs on veterans, the Kirby years are what drove prices up he inherited a booming company and set about ruining it in spectacular fashion.

hobojebus wrote:

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20,

Wait! When did GW ever sell plastic Canadians?!

 SolarCross wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20,

Wait! When did GW ever sell plastic Canadians?!

Gotta love me my Canadians

In all seriousness, that joke has been around for ages

G.A

£9 in 1995 is equal to £16 today, adjusted for inflation.

Ragnar Blackmane, who must be amongst the oldest sculpts still available, is £12.

The cost relative to income per item isn't horrific, it's that the ceiling has crept up and up with ever bigger kits and the scope of the game has gradually encompassed more and more models.

So the price relative to inflation isn't that bad, the cost relative to the % of your army it represents is where the real damage has been done.

hobojebus wrote:

I remember when £5 got you five plastic marines, £4 got you a terminator with special weapon £9 got you a metal special character, to say their prices have always been high is not strictly true there was a time pocket money would let you buy more than paint.

What I said was that their prices have always been at the upper end of the market.

I've been playing 40k since 1995. For all of that time, GW minis have been more expensive than most of their competitors, and have been commonly regarded as more expensive than they should be.

It's become more pronounced in recent years, but was always there.

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

How is this any different from buying a plastic toy G.I. Joe tank at ToysRUs for $30? Or any sized action figure for $15 compared to a $90 Wraithlord? Companies like Matel and Hasbro sell toys around those price ranges and they seem to be holding pretty well.

The difference there is volume. Matel and Hasbro sell so many more units that's it's ridiculous.

Mattel, since you mentioned them, have a sales revenue of ~ $2 billion - 16x GW.

How many wraithlords do you think sell? How many of those action figures? When you're selling way more you can spread your upfront costs (moulds, development, etc.) much more thinly. Likewise, ToysRUs is much higher volume than game store and so can add far less margin to products.


GW's price per model isn't overly high compared to many competitors. Look at Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Mercs, Malifaux, etc. - the average £/model in your army is almost certainly lower in a 40K army. 40K is expensive because it needs lots of models and the ruleset breaks down at low points values. If GW offered a ruleset modification for ~500points then 40K would be pretty comparable to those games I mentioned on overall cost.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

How is this any different from buying a plastic toy G.I. Joe tank at ToysRUs for $30? Or any sized action figure for $15 compared to a $90 Wraithlord? Companies like Matel and Hasbro sell toys around those price ranges and they seem to be holding pretty well.

The difference there is volume. Matel and Hasbro sell so many more units that's it's ridiculous.

Mattel, since you mentioned them, have a sales revenue of ~ $2 billion - 16x GW.

How many wraithlords do you think sell? How many of those action figures? When you're selling way more you can spread your upfront costs (moulds, development, etc.) much more thinly. Likewise, ToysRUs is much higher volume than game store and so can add far less margin to products.

This is a good point, but you can make a similar argument in regards to GW and PP. I'm sure GW sells more than PP, certainly historically, but the prices remain pretty close, or heavily in GW's favor.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW's price per model isn't overly high compared to many competitors. Look at Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Mercs, Malifaux, etc. - the average £/model in your army is almost certainly lower in a 40K army. 40K is expensive because it needs lots of models and the ruleset breaks down at low points values. If GW offered a ruleset modification for ~500points then 40K would be pretty comparable to those games I mentioned on overall cost.

I was curious about this, so I went to the websites for both companies to compare. Here is what I found;

Infantry; PP seems to average about 5-7 per model, while GW seems to be 4-10 per model (I didn't include outliers like sisters and some really old PP models). Comparing the basic troops, GW has a big advantage. Elite infantry, PP seems to have a big advantage.
I would say this is a wash. From a modeling POV, GW wins since they give more sprues. From a gaming POV, Basic troops are garbage in 40k for most armies, so you need to compare elites and that is where PP pulls ahead. A squad of troops in Warmachine also goes further and can be smaller than a squad of troops in 40k, while being roughly the same point cost if not greater (percent wise).

I would say this is a tie.
I specifically compared Tactical marines, Terminators (I put oblits as a...random, they are very expensive), assault marines, and some necron models. For WM/H, I looked at cygnar models.
I can see why basic troops are bad in 40k. They are the best deal by far.

Cavarly/Jetbikes. Roughly the same again, a unit of 3 seems to cost 40-50 for both. Again, modeling GW wins, game wise PP.
Compared necron stalkers and oblits with stormlances and steel heads.

Leaders. PP is in the 10-20 range for single leader models (Cygnar), while GW is in the 20-30 range for single leader models (Chaos.Marines). For units, PP is about 30 for a 3 man unit (H3) while GW is 50 for a 2 man unit (captain plus honor guard)
PP wins big here. You also need only 1 of these per list for PP, for GW you might want 2 or more.

Heavy Tanks/Jacks. This is where PP pulls way ahead.
Jacks are about 15-30, with lights being at the bottom and heavies at the top. Characters are slightly more expensive than average of course, but not so bad. I looked at Cygnar jacks.
Tanks and heavies from GW are crazy overpriced. Transports are 40 (so already more than a jack), Tanks are closer to 60-70. That's crazy from any perspective, gameplay or model wise. A rhino is boring compared to a jack, and 2 jacks get you a lot further than one vindicator when building an army.

LoW/Gargants. For PP, 130-135 is the average. For GW, 140-160 is the average. PP wins again.

So, basically Scott, you are wrong. PP is on average the same or much much cheaper than GW in nearly every way. Basic troops are the biggest exception, and for most armies, those are really bad. I imagine if I looked at the horde armies, the prices per model would be better (I stayed with marines mostly, being the most popular army and would most likely be the cheapest) but the dollars per point would be much worse.

This isn't including rules or deals, where PP is much better as well. WM/H seems cheaper to me in nearly every way.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

I assume it comes down to volume of sales. Specialist Games by nature don't generate as much revenue.

In a game like Blood Bowl, a player could own more teams than they'll ever get around to playing and still spend significantly less than they would on an average 40K army, even though the cost of developing and producing miniatures for both games is going to be about the same.

 adamsouza wrote:
Repeating "7th edition is a lame duck" is 40K equivalent of "Obama is a muslim". There is no proof of either, and simply saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

How is there no proof? Sad Panda is the most accurate rumor monger we have, and those words came straight out of his mouth on this very forum. Considering this is the same guy who told us we weren't going to be getting any major codex updates after Tau, I don't understand how you can doubt him. We've had a breakneck release cycle for the last few years, and we've gone nine months without a major update for a 40K army and there's still none in sight. Clearly you're in the minority of people who love 7th edition, and that's cool, but you're refuting the community's most reliable source of information from inside the company.