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: Acknowledging that some may fail, but are necessary to maintain in the range, is pretty self evident. It's also pretty unlikely for GW given the length of time much of their product remains on sale, a kit would have to be spectacularly unpopular to not ultimately break even.
Sisters of Battle would be the poster child here - a range that is so spectacularly unpopular that GW, with its vast resources, will not commit to developing plastic models, knowing that they will not ultimately break even.
Unpopular? Sisters are incredibly popular with the fanbase its just that GW seem to think that they are not. Case point, that limited edition Cannoness figure was expected to take several weeks to sell out, not the several hours it actually took. The sell out shocked GW who for some reason (and despite the fact that people are still willing to spend £55 on 10 20+ year old monopose figures) did not think that the Sisters line was popular. Dont mistake GW's ignorance for poor a lack of popularity.
Realistically how big is the fan base?
the cannoness could be because people want sisters or entirely possible its because its limited and shiny. you also cant underestimate scalpers and just straight collectors.
i mean how fast did marbo disappear. do they have a massive fan base?
(i mean i would love plastic sisters)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 17:54:41
Without knowing precisely how many were available, one can't make any claims as to the popularity of anything based on it selling out. If there were 50 Canoness models and they had to cast another 30, it hardly rates as massively popular yet the narrative of the events still holds true.
I'm sure the numbers were higher, of course, but it isn't good evidence.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Acknowledging that some may fail, but are necessary to maintain in the range, is pretty self evident. It's also pretty unlikely for GW given the length of time much of their product remains on sale, a kit would have to be spectacularly unpopular to not ultimately break even.
Sisters of Battle would be the poster child here - a range that is so spectacularly unpopular that GW, with its vast resources, will not commit to developing plastic models, knowing that they will not ultimately break even.
Unpopular? Sisters are incredibly popular with the fanbase
Dont mistake GW's ignorance for poor a lack of popularity.
Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential. ____
Azreal13 wrote: Acknowledging that some may fail, but are necessary to maintain in the range, is pretty self evident. It's also pretty unlikely for GW given the length of time much of their product remains on sale, a kit would have to be spectacularly unpopular to not ultimately break even.
Sisters of Battle would be the poster child here - a range that is so spectacularly unpopular that GW, with its vast resources, will not commit to developing plastic models, knowing that they will not ultimately break even.
Unpopular? Sisters are incredibly popular with the fanbase
Dont mistake GW's ignorance for poor a lack of popularity.
Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential.
Then again thats based off the exceptionally expensive metal army. it probably skews the numbers pretty bad for current times.
so asides from the original release which may have been low they dont have much to go on that would be accurate. and they probably deemed the risk to be higher than it was worth. or not and they are just holding onto it for a rainy day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 18:24:26
Azreal13 wrote: Acknowledging that some may fail, but are necessary to maintain in the range, is pretty self evident. It's also pretty unlikely for GW given the length of time much of their product remains on sale, a kit would have to be spectacularly unpopular to not ultimately break even.
Sisters of Battle would be the poster child here - a range that is so spectacularly unpopular that GW, with its vast resources, will not commit to developing plastic models, knowing that they will not ultimately break even.
Unpopular? Sisters are incredibly popular with the fanbase
Dont mistake GW's ignorance for poor a lack of popularity.
Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential.
Then again thats based off the exceptionally expensive metal army. it probably skews the numbers pretty bad for current times.
so asides from the original release which may have been low they dont have much to go on that would be accurate. and they probably deemed the risk to be higher than it was worth. or not and they are just holding onto it for a rainy day.
Not really. My Imperial Guard army is metal, and it's pretty sizable, despite the fact that I could have saved a bit buying plastic Catachans instead. However, I liked the look of the Tallarn models best, so the price premium basically didn't matter. Proving GW is correct to price what the market will bear.
Plastic Guardsmen are only slightly less expensive than the metals (which are still available), and Sisters are only slightly more expensive per model compared to those. But still significantly cheaper than Sisters of Silence or Forgeworld resin Guardsmen.
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 18:43:32
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 19:17:14
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
It would probably take a big price drop to bring those folks back. The people who are that price sensitive tend to be very price sensitive.
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
It’s unlikely to.
When you cut a price, you’re not necessarily cutting production costs. So instead, you’re slicing into your profit margin. So any boost in sales will typically have to exceed the cut in price to actually pay off.
Example using easy, round numbers. This is not meant to be demonstrative of GW’s actual margins....
Box costs £100. You have a 50% profit margin.
You then reduce your price 20%, to 80%.
If sales remain the same, you’ve just cut your profit margin by 40%. If you increase sales by 20%, you’re still 20% down.
Remember, most retailers reduce prices not to drive profits, but get rid of excess stock.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Ok Doc, when you've got a minute I'd like your handy guide on educating familial matriarchs in the process of sucking bird ova.
Besides, simply stating "it's unlikely to" is just an opinion, and one that doesn't necessarily hold up when one of the things that has supported the turnaround at GW has been the introduction of bundles which contained actual discounts.
I'm not outright stating it's the better idea, but it is an alternative approach, just not the one GW went for.
Remember, most retailers reduce prices not to drive profits, but get rid of excess stock.
But we're not talking about reducing prices, we're talking, theoretically, about an alternative pricing strategy where you don't go after the highest £ per unit sold, but instead price more attractively in order to drive volume and, again, theoretically, make more profit overall. Not the same thing at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 20:10:16
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The people with most comprehensive understanding of GW pricing strategy, profit margins, sales volume and so on are, unsurprisingly, GW.
If they thought lowering prices would increase profits they would do it. They could be wrong, but as noted they control every aspect of production and a significant amount of distribution and sales. They have the most comprehensive information with which to determine the optimal pricing point. We have comparatively little information to work with and suggestions that this or that measure would make them even richer are, at best, difficult to substantiate.
Now whether we as individuals feel these prices are reasonable or fair is an entirely separate matter. Personally I cannot understand why anyone would buy branded clothing, a brand new car, or a computer that cost more than £500, but that doesn’t mean such things are overpriced,
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/19 20:41:05
Ultimately, when running a business these days, thanks to EPOS etc,, you have access to all the information in the world about how you're doing.
Most large chains even monitor how many people are walking in and out of the store so they can reconcile that with sales made, adjust staff levels etc. (If you want to mess with the manager of your local branch of *insert name here* pretend to be looking at something in the doorway while drifting over the threshold and back, watch him turn pale as the system registers dozens of people walking in and out of the store without anything going through the till!)
Thing is, for all that, much still ultimately boils down to a judgment call. Once you've made that call, you'll never ultimately know if it was the right one, because you can't go back and try again, and even if it fails you can't know another option would have succeeded, and if it works you can't know that another option wouldn't have done even better.
So while chasing high margins is undoubtedly working for GW, chasing volume is just as valid a pricing strategy for a company to adopt, just one that, at some point in time, GW rejected in favor of another approach. There is now no way of saying that over the last few decades it wouldn't have done better, because that isn't our reality.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
All of that is entirely true. However it is equally true to say that GW could have increased all prices by 5% for the same period and made even larger profits.
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
GW knows, because they tried the lower price / higher volume thing before moving to, and sticking with, the higher price point that persists today. As a profit-seeking and profit-maximizing company, if that lower margin volume drove higher overall profits, GW would have stopped raising prices unless absolutely necessary. But that didn't happen. Instead GW accelerated price increases to the maximum that people would pay. GW got people to buy boutique versions of their product (miniatures, not rulesets), along with new, high end items like End Times and Primaris Marines.
still suspect part of the pricing plan is due to the millstone of the B&M store chain, profit by volume would be a way less risky experiment from a warehouse or three but the stores have to operate on a shelf space/margin/expenses kind of model
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
GW knows, because they tried the lower price / higher volume thing before moving to, and sticking with, the higher price point that persists today. As a profit-seeking and profit-maximizing company, if that lower margin volume drove higher overall profits, GW would have stopped raising prices unless absolutely necessary. But that didn't happen. Instead GW accelerated price increases to the maximum that people would pay. GW got people to buy boutique versions of their product (miniatures, not rulesets), along with new, high end items like End Times and Primaris Marines.
I'm not sure I remember that period in GW history? Serious question, when weren't they always charging a high price relative to the competition?
I'm sure you don't believe Primaris or End Times are "high end" any more than I do, they're just more GW products.
Denny wrote:All of that is entirely true. However it is equally true to say that GW could have increased all prices by 5% for the same period and made even larger profits.
True, but then thats simply a discussion about whether they've fully exploited their chosen strategy, not whether another one would be more successful.
Turnip Jedi wrote:still suspect part of the pricing plan is due to the millstone of the B&M store chain, profit by volume would be a way less risky experiment from a warehouse or three but the stores have to operate on a shelf space/margin/expenses kind of model
Most definitely, that's all tied up with my whole "decisions made decades ago" thing. There are several aspects of modern GW which at some point were a decision to be made, rather than a reality to be dealt with, and we simp,y don't know how things would have gone if different decisions had been made.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 22:06:42
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Az- They briefly flirted with lower price points on some boxes, most notably the Chaos and Cold One knights that were released in this period both at £12 a box IIRC.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Ah ok, so more the odd release than a period of history where they pursued the strategy wholesale?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Ah ok, so more the odd release than a period of history where they pursued the strategy wholesale?
From what I remember it was one of GW's ill-fated experiments under Kirby's reign as (I was told by GW staff at the time) "they were seeing how these would sell" or something as their prices were out of whack with the rest of the plastics range (IIRC this would have been about 10 years ago tops) where most of the other boxes were in the £15 to £20 range.
Obviously GW concluded it didn't work as we never saw cavalry boxes priced like that again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 22:47:41
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
GW knows, because they tried the lower price / higher volume thing before moving to, and sticking with, the higher price point that persists today. As a profit-seeking and profit-maximizing company, if that lower margin volume drove higher overall profits, GW would have stopped raising prices unless absolutely necessary. But that didn't happen. Instead GW accelerated price increases to the maximum that people would pay. GW got people to buy boutique versions of their product (miniatures, not rulesets), along with new, high end items like End Times and Primaris Marines.
I'm not sure I remember that period in GW history? Serious question, when weren't they always charging a high price relative to the competition?
I'm sure you don't believe Primaris or End Times are "high end" any more than I do, they're just more GW products.
Back in the 80s & 90s, GW priced very competitively with all sorts of sales deals. I remember when they used to do Buy 2, Get 1 FREE opening sales -33% off price in store. That's a significant savings. And you used to be able to buy individual bits, rather than having to buy whole models, for customization. Or consider the Land Raider / Rhino bundles from way back when (of course, at the time, the competition didn't even do vehicles).
When originally released, End Times absolutely were high end, boutique items, and the price tag reflected it. Now, they're "normal" GW product.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential.
And don't mistake lack of sales of an all-metal army with nonexistent rules support for lack of sales potential. SoB aren't going to sell well right now no matter how many people would love to buy an army because metal sucks to work with (cleanup is hell, assembly is difficult and requires tons of pinning, converting the monopose models requires hacking them apart and sculpting it back together, even getting them to stay painted is a pain) and once you've invested the ridiculous amount of time and effort to build your all-metal army you're stuck with ancient rules and constantly questioning if your army is going to continue to be legal. Of course not many people are going to buy into an army in that state. If you replace SoB with C:SM you'd see space marine sales crash as all but the most hardcore space marine fans stop buying.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Price is not a factor for GW collectors, and GW's price strategy is both rational and correc
Collectors, maybe, but there's a whole hoard of gamers out there too. The assumption their strategy is correct is impossible to support when we don't know that a drop in price wouldn't generate a spike in volume that far offsets the reduction in income per sale.
GW knows, because they tried the lower price / higher volume thing before moving to, and sticking with, the higher price point that persists today. As a profit-seeking and profit-maximizing company, if that lower margin volume drove higher overall profits, GW would have stopped raising prices unless absolutely necessary. But that didn't happen. Instead GW accelerated price increases to the maximum that people would pay. GW got people to buy boutique versions of their product (miniatures, not rulesets), along with new, high end items like End Times and Primaris Marines.
I'm not sure I remember that period in GW history? Serious question, when weren't they always charging a high price relative to the competition?
I'm sure you don't believe Primaris or End Times are "high end" any more than I do, they're just more GW products.
Back in the 80s & 90s, GW priced very competitively with all sorts of sales deals. I remember when they used to do Buy 2, Get 1 FREE opening sales -33% off price in store. That's a significant savings. And you used to be able to buy individual bits, rather than having to buy whole models, for customization. Or consider the Land Raider / Rhino bundles from way back when (of course, at the time, the competition didn't even do vehicles).
A sale isn't a pricing strategy. It's promotional activity. You can conduct a sale independently of a broader approach. Equally individual bits doesn't really constitute a high volume approach, in fact for all the effort involved I would expect that the margin on bits was actually pretty huge as a percentage. Equally I'm not sure how a product released pre-public ownership, 30 years ago when the company was essentially bunch of friends improvising things as they went can really be relevant to anything other than that era? I'm also pretty sure back then that GW stuff wasn't exactly cheap in relation to other products, one or two lines (maybe) aside.
It looks pretty much to me that GW have never tried the higher volume approach in a meaningful way. That's fine, that may always have been the right call. But there's no way to be certain.
When originally released, End Times absolutely were high end, boutique items, and the price tag reflected it. Now, they're "normal" GW product.
I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes "boutique" so there's little point in getting bogged down in semantics.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Dude, the End Times models absolutely were "boutique" centerpieces, and sold as such. And back in the day, GW definitely pushed volume as a strategy, for which sales and such were a part of their push. It baffles me that you don't understand that, or are willfully denying it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, the End Times models absolutely were "boutique" centerpieces, and sold as such.
By what standards? I don't remember them being any different from the rest of GW's product lines. Sure, some of them are big, but so are Baneblades. They were more detailed, but that was less of a change in business concept and more of the inevitable result of improvements in sculpting technology compared to the 20+ year old sculpts that were still around in WHFB. They were still mass-produced plastic model kits for your standard tabletop army, and nothing special from the point of view of the miniatures hobby as a whole.
And back in the day, GW definitely pushed volume as a strategy, for which sales and such were a part of their push. It baffles me that you don't understand that, or are willfully denying it.
Back in the 80s is so far back in the day, in such a different world, that any strategy used back then has nothing to do with modern GW and its business choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/20 02:26:40
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, the End Times models absolutely were "boutique" centerpieces, and sold as such. And back in the day, GW definitely pushed volume as a strategy, for which sales and such were a part of their push. It baffles me that you don't understand that, or are willfully denying it.
I agree with everything Peri said in response.
And that happens so rarely that you're almost definitely wrong.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential.
And don't mistake lack of sales of an all-metal army with nonexistent rules support for lack of sales potential. SoB aren't going to sell well right now no matter how many people would love to buy an army because metal sucks to work with (cleanup is hell, assembly is difficult and requires tons of pinning.
This. It's not cost that stopped me from doing a SoB army. I had some trial minis and painted them up, but the thought of doing 100 of the buggers in metal stopped me cold. If they had plastics, I would have bought Forge World Repressors and Exorcists to boot. A friend of mine built a SoB army, and I helped him come up with the dead-easiest paint scheme we could, because he was new to painting, but no way in hell was I gonna help him clean and file 100 metal sisters. Especially not once the lead laws came in to screw over miniature wargamers forever with that godawful PEWTER.
One has the example of the Dark Eldar to see what's possible when an unpopular range is revisited with updated sculpts and plastic kits.
I can't believe Sisters are less popular than DE were, even to this day, otherwise I'm sure they'd have been quietly retired. While I enjoy winding up the super touchy Sisters players as much as the next man, that there isn't a credible argument for their reinvention is a pretty weak stance to adopt.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I can only imagine the SOBs were very unpopular waaay back in 2nd edition when they came out. That was a time when most models were metal anyway so being metal wasn't a huge negative to collecting an army.
Afterall, Necrons came out originally in all metal about the same time the SOBs did and Necrons got a full plastic release the next edition.
G-dubs must still be struggling with those damned infernal sleeves!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yes, unpopular based on actual sales. Yes, GW can sell things to both of the Sisters players still out there, but nobody else is buying them.
Don't mistake irrational fan support for actual sales potential.
And don't mistake lack of sales of an all-metal army with nonexistent rules support for lack of sales potential. SoB aren't going to sell well right now no matter how many people would love to buy an army because metal sucks to work with (cleanup is hell, assembly is difficult and requires tons of pinning.
This. It's not cost that stopped me from doing a SoB army. I had some trial minis and painted them up, but the thought of doing 100 of the buggers in metal stopped me cold.
Really? I've got something like 200 metal Imperial Guard, and another 300 metal Eldar. 100 is nothing.
Also, Sisters are basically mono-pose minis with backpacks. Easy-peasy to assemble, and Dakka's Gallery shows that cleanup is entirely optional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I can only imagine the SOBs were very unpopular waaay back in 2nd edition when they came out. That was a time when most models were metal anyway so being metal wasn't a huge negative to collecting an army.
Afterall, Necrons came out originally in all metal about the same time the SOBs did and Necrons got a full plastic release the next edition.
G-dubs must still be struggling with those damned infernal sleeves!
I heard that GW is still trying to move the original production run of Sisters from 2E!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/20 09:53:35
JohnHwangDD wrote: Really? I've got something like 200 metal Imperial Guard, and another 300 metal Eldar. 100 is nothing.
You are clearly the exception to the rule. For most people metal models are a huge negative and dealing with 100+ of them is a strong reason to avoid an army even if they otherwise like it. Add on the lack of rules support and it should be obvious why even players who would be interested in a plastic SoB army stay far away from the current version.
Also, Sisters are basically mono-pose minis with backpacks. Easy-peasy to assemble, and Dakka's Gallery shows that cleanup is entirely optional.
IOW, "SoB are easy if you just accept having mold lines everywhere on your very expensive army". Do you honestly think this is a compelling defense?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
Especially not once the lead laws came in to screw over miniature wargamers forever with that godawful PEWTER.
