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.

I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

You’ve got the scale completely wrong, Armigers are about Warlord sized.

I voted yes due to me going bust!

2 Warlords
6 Knights
2 Reavers
4 Warhounds (not yet)

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

I think the reduced popularity in north America is more price factor then any thing else, Battletech isn't exactly at it's peak of popularity these days. I think the UK price was solid one but the NA price managed to slide just up into "ouch expensive" range

 Manchu wrote:
I was initially angry that the price wasn't lower, as GW has been slinging out some hot deals of late. But the longer I tried to resist, tte more I realized that not picking up the GME, a pretty great starter for a game which I was bound to get into sooner or later, was making a chump out of me.

Just wait until Christmas when they put a big bundle with discount?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I was always think this is a difficult assertion to make. If you artificially restrict supply for the combined two player set, especially to the independent retailers then it is going to look as a success as it forces people to buy early to avoid missing out (or you have to wait until next year, or pay the higher price at GW). That can increase sales significantly in the first week. This is probably what GW want a quick turnaround of the supply so not to be sitting on shelves for months. They can then gauge how extra appetite there is and plan accordingly. If they don't restrict supply then people start thinking "well I'll wait 6 months and see how it goes" that potentially deflates sales initially and then in the long term as well.

Insidious thoughts there. Actually possible. Though it is Specialist Games and they had the kit made in China so it could of been a budget thing or not. The Warlord models themselves were made in the UK so who knows.

It could be that they didn't have the capacity for more or funds, or they wanted an inflated launch. Though I suspect we will see a Reaver and Warhound starter kit if they are serious about this, with rules for about $135ish USD. (I price the Warhounds at $75 because they are a box set of 2)

changemod wrote:
You’ve got the scale completely wrong, Armigers are about Warlord sized.

Warlords are a bit bigger than Armigers, but smaller than Knights. Some people are talking about converting 40k Knights into AT Imperator Titans.

changemod wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

You’ve got the scale completely wrong, Armigers are about Warlord sized.

Yes, I know. I’m using the models I have. If I could find something dreadnought-sized, I’d use that for knights (hmm...maybe a Contemptor from Calth?).

Besides, there’s no “wrong” scale. These things aren’t based on anything real, so you can make them as big or small as desired. At worst, weapon ranges would need a tweak.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

I think the reduced popularity in north America is more price factor then any thing else, Battletech isn't exactly at it's peak of popularity these days. I think the UK price was solid one but the NA price managed to slide just up into "ouch expensive" range

Battletech not popular? That´s a pity. I played it in the 90s but focused later on GW & various rpg products. Later Pacific Rim ignited a desire to paint big robots and nowadays three IK stand in my glass cabinet ready for action. What issues does Battletech have despite the price?

I'd say that Battletech certainly still has its devotees. A lot of people I know are playing the Alpha Strike version, though, where you can have a lot of mechs on the field and still settle a game in less than a weekend. 'Classic' Battletech seems more niche, with its detailed rules and lots of die rolling. It came from a different era, where large complicated rulebooks, lots of die rolling, and vast games that took forever to play a few turns were common in the 80s. Like Star Fleet Battles and Car Wars...super popular 30 years ago, now far more niche.

 Strg Alt wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I get the sense this game sold like gangbusters in the UK, but not nearly so quickly in the US (maybe because of the popularity of BattleTech in the states).

I personally picked up the rules set & knights. Until I can put aside some for the remaining Titans, will be proxying models in (I have 3 knights [reavers], 2 armigers [warhounds], several gundam/leviathan/robotech models I could use as Warlords and a slew of old battlemech/robotech mechs I can proxy as knights). Things may be a bit oversized, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Also been working on statting up the various vehicles, and I have a bunch of 1/100 tanks, old epic vehicles (and a freshly 3D Shadowsword) I'd like to put on the table.

I think the reduced popularity in north America is more price factor then any thing else, Battletech isn't exactly at it's peak of popularity these days. I think the UK price was solid one but the NA price managed to slide just up into "ouch expensive" range

Battletech not popular? That´s a pity. I played it in the 90s but focused later on GW & various rpg products. Later Pacific Rim ignited a desire to paint big robots and nowadays three IK stand in my glass cabinet ready for action. What issues does Battletech have despite the price?

you just proved my point. I never said Battletech isn't popular just that it's not at "peak popularity" thats not a bash of the game, just a honest reckongization.
Battletech's issues are more due to it's play style (it's a 80s style table top game.. I mean when people say 40k is too complex, a game like Btech isn't going to have mass market appeal) there's also the matter of visability, which it just isn't these days, not a lot of gaming stores carry it anymore.

I hope the game does catch on. I loved battletech - I just thought the crunchy game was too crunchy and time consuming and the alpha-strike took the simplification to overkill levels. Plus the models - ugh. Some are just so ugly.

I may have to get into AT once more models get released.

SirWeeble wrote:
I hope the game does catch on. I loved battletech - I just thought the crunchy game was too crunchy and time consuming and the alpha-strike took the simplification to overkill levels. Plus the models - ugh. Some are just so ugly.

I may have to get into AT once more models get released.

Another one comes out this Saturday, the Hound next month.

Alpha striking is decent but less likely with the mechanics and the game is crunchy with just a few models.

Just want to throw this out there.

The game was poorly released, no one can argue that I think.

The intent here was a big meaty game for gamers. No pre-measuring, templates, strict LoS rules and an almost infinite ability to be expanded upon with entirely new lines and theaters of operation.

There might not even be a two player starter at all, they aren't worried about "getting new players" as is the case with their range of two player options for their various other offerings.

Now the range should have been released at the same time, absolutely. Aside from the diehards who bought in with a GM or two at launch we have had a hard time trying to sell it locally. Asking a $200 buy in for a Warlord, a Banner and Rule Bundle hasn't gone well and I think the AT community as a whole has suffered from the setback.

Once the range is out and I can tell a random interested person at the store "Yeah if you buy this $70 box of Hounds and this $35 Banner we can fake the rest of it.

Suddenly your buy in is less than a two player "Big Box" and said person can sit down, knock out 5 fairly simple models and get a decently involved game in. Something like that can really have a positive effect on perception in so far as how buyable a game system is.

Right now people are still affected by sticker shock and its a toss up wether or not attention spans will hang tough long enough for Hounds to drop.

Basically, interest is there sans the prices on Warlords and I hope GWs decision to not release Hounds first doesn't kill communities before they even get started.

P.S. Absolutely brilliant rules, system makes you feel like you are playing with massive lumbering land ships on legs and the comparison between a Knights Rapid Fire Battlecannon and a Warlords Volcano Cannon is extremely satisfying.

 Lysenis wrote:

Alpha striking is decent but less likely with the mechanics and the game is crunchy with just a few models.

By "alpha strike" i was referring to the simplified version of battletech. Normal battletech is obscenely detailed. Each mech requires a full sheet printout to track everything and a 4vs4 mech battle can run many hours. Alpha strike dumbs every unit down to 2 stats. Its an extreme contrast and I always thought there could have been something a bit more in-between. From the very little I've seen of Adeptus Titanicus, it seems it kind of does this well.

okcgamerguy wrote:
Just want to throw this out there.

The game was poorly released, no one can argue that I think.

The intent here was a big meaty game for gamers. No pre-measuring, templates, strict LoS rules and an almost infinite ability to be expanded upon with entirely new lines and theaters of operation.

There might not even be a two player starter at all, they aren't worried about "getting new players" as is the case with their range of two player options for their various other offerings.

Now the range should have been released at the same time, absolutely. Aside from the diehards who bought in with a GM or two at launch we have had a hard time trying to sell it locally. Asking a $200 buy in for a Warlord, a Banner and Rule Bundle hasn't gone well and I think the AT community as a whole has suffered from the setback.

Once the range is out and I can tell a random interested person at the store "Yeah if you buy this $70 box of Hounds and this $35 Banner we can fake the rest of it.

Suddenly your buy in is less than a two player "Big Box" and said person can sit down, knock out 5 fairly simple models and get a decently involved game in. Something like that can really have a positive effect on perception in so far as how buyable a game system is.

Right now people are still affected by sticker shock and its a toss up wether or not attention spans will hang tough long enough for Hounds to drop.

Basically, interest is there sans the prices on Warlords and I hope GWs decision to not release Hounds first doesn't kill communities before they even get started.

P.S. Absolutely brilliant rules, system makes you feel like you are playing with massive lumbering land ships on legs and the comparison between a Knights Rapid Fire Battlecannon and a Warlords Volcano Cannon is extremely satisfying.

Yet a few weeks later the Reavers are out.

They went nostalgic with their initial release and the sticker shock is overblown by the community not actually pricing things properly. When said "Sticker shock" nets you the biggest model for free is it much of a sticker shock or just overblown opinions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SirWeeble wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Alpha striking is decent but less likely with the mechanics and the game is crunchy with just a few models.

By "alpha strike" i was referring to the simplified version of battletech. Normal battletech is obscenely detailed. Each mech requires a full sheet printout to track everything and a 4vs4 mech battle can run many hours. Alpha strike dumbs every unit down to 2 stats. Its an extreme contrast and I always thought there could have been something a bit more in-between. From the very little I've seen of Adeptus Titanicus, it seems it kind of does this well.

Ahhh ok

Yea, AT18 is less crunchy than Battletech but far more than Alpha Strike

 Lysenis wrote:
Insidious thoughts there. Actually possible. Though it is Specialist Games and they had the kit made in China so it could of been a budget thing or not. The Warlord models themselves were made in the UK so who knows.

It could be that they didn't have the capacity for more or funds, or they wanted an inflated launch. Though I suspect we will see a Reaver and Warhound starter kit if they are serious about this, with rules for about $135ish USD. (I price the Warhounds at $75 because they are a box set of 2)

My biggest concern at the moment is the saturation bombing that is going on by GW. There's simply not time to buy, paint game with everything that is coming out. Blood bowl, necromunda, LoTR, new gorkamorka, kill team, 40k quest etc. Something is going to give eventually. Rather than a more steady release its like they want to get out everything now. That could have worrying consequences because you can't keep up this hectic schedule of new games.

I rather see it as GW offering different lines for different fans - they don't expect every customer to be a customer of everything.

Plus many long term fans already have big armies for their core games. They've already got 50000K points of Space Marines - a customer like that is very unlikely to buy an entire new SM army; though they will likely pick up a new model here and there now as you release them. But you can only bloat an army so far before you ahve to recycle old sculpts.

So having other armies helps ;but so too does having other and different game systems open for the player; and those who want something else.


The only issue I see is GW managing to support all these games in the future; however with GW opening a brand new factory and putting dedicated teams behind each of the specialist games that says to me that they are going to do a darn good try at supporting them.
Instead of the secondary games being side projects worked on by people inbetween other projects; they have their own team and dedicated focus. That's a big thing as it means many projects can work and progress alongside each other.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
Insidious thoughts there. Actually possible. Though it is Specialist Games and they had the kit made in China so it could of been a budget thing or not. The Warlord models themselves were made in the UK so who knows.

It could be that they didn't have the capacity for more or funds, or they wanted an inflated launch. Though I suspect we will see a Reaver and Warhound starter kit if they are serious about this, with rules for about $135ish USD. (I price the Warhounds at $75 because they are a box set of 2)

My biggest concern at the moment is the saturation bombing that is going on by GW. There's simply not time to buy, paint game with everything that is coming out. Blood bowl, necromunda, LoTR, new gorkamorka, kill team, 40k quest etc. Something is going to give eventually. Rather than a more steady release its like they want to get out everything now. That could have worrying consequences because you can't keep up this hectic schedule of new games.

As Overread stated, GW seems to be going big net casting and letting us the fish bite where we please. It can backfire in sales but so far its been amazing.

okcgamerguy wrote:
Just want to throw this out there.

The game was poorly released, no one can argue that I think.

(snip)

I'd disagree based on my experience.

Granted, with a kid and work, my hobby time is a trifle limited, but by the time I have my terrain and Warlords ready for play, the Reavers will be out. And the time needed to get those ready will carry me to the Warhound release date.

I fully acknowledge that for someone wanting to play with all the toys "today," this isn't ideal, but I doubt I'll even notice.

And regardless of how people feel about the pricing, my pocketbook is glad for the respite between releases.

So it might not be quite as botched as you think. I get the feeling GW intentionally went with a "slow burn" release schedule.

Haven't bought it yet. For titan vs titan type of battles I have battletech. I'm waiting(or dreading depending on do you ask my heart or my wallet...) for the epic if they ever get it. If that happens I will get titans(and maybe rules for the AT) but until that not one cent will go to the game. Well unless somebody sells me a warlord for literally a cent Guess I can pay that much for paperweight.

 Whirlwind wrote:
My biggest concern at the moment is the saturation bombing that is going on by GW. There's simply not time to buy, paint game with everything that is coming out. Blood bowl, necromunda, LoTR, new gorkamorka, kill team, 40k quest etc. Something is going to give eventually. Rather than a more steady release its like they want to get out everything now. That could have worrying consequences because you can't keep up this hectic schedule of new games.

Yeah it's absolutely raining new releases now. And not just new figures but entirely new game systems that are not cross-compatible. As an individual games I don't have a problem with this - I'm a big boy and I can make rational decisions about what I do and don't buy (all evidence to the contrary aside). It's my circle of gaming buddies I'm holding my breath for. Some people are running this way and some that, chasing wildly different systems. The single hardest thing to come by in wargaming is good, committed opponents. I've been fortunate enough to see half a dozen friends buy into AT but I feel sorry for the single Infinity player or the two poor schmucks interested in Kill Team...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Haven't bought it yet. For titan vs titan type of battles I have battletech. I'm waiting(or dreading depending on do you ask my heart or my wallet...) for the epic if they ever get it. If that happens I will get titans(and maybe rules for the AT) but until that not one cent will go to the game. Well unless somebody sells me a warlord for literally a cent Guess I can pay that much for paperweight.

BattleTech needs to hurry up and get its big box release out there. It's like the game doesn't even want to be played

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
Insidious thoughts there. Actually possible. Though it is Specialist Games and they had the kit made in China so it could of been a budget thing or not. The Warlord models themselves were made in the UK so who knows.

It could be that they didn't have the capacity for more or funds, or they wanted an inflated launch. Though I suspect we will see a Reaver and Warhound starter kit if they are serious about this, with rules for about $135ish USD. (I price the Warhounds at $75 because they are a box set of 2)

My biggest concern at the moment is the saturation bombing that is going on by GW. There's simply not time to buy, paint game with everything that is coming out. Blood bowl, necromunda, LoTR, new gorkamorka, kill team, 40k quest etc. Something is going to give eventually. Rather than a more steady release its like they want to get out everything now. That could have worrying consequences because you can't keep up this hectic schedule of new games.

Good news is you don't HAVE to play everything. What this however allows is catching many players who wouldn't be interested in your products. If you only sell 2-3 items you won't get as large customer base as you would get with 6-7 products.

Sure individual player might not be able to get 6-7 but so what? Everybody isn't interested about everything.

tneva82 wrote:


Good news is you don't HAVE to play everything. What this however allows is catching many players who wouldn't be interested in your products. If you only sell 2-3 items you won't get as large customer base as you would get with 6-7 products.

Sure individual player might not be able to get 6-7 but so what? Everybody isn't interested about everything.

That's not really correct because it assumes that the market base is infinitely large and has infinite ability to spend money/time on the hobby which it isn't. What can happen is that games start cannibalising sales of other systems that GW produces. In effect each product has less sales reducing the overall margins on all of the games. That can make the long term viability of some games much worse.

For example lets suppose you are interested in both Necromunda and Kill Team. They both being fundamentally similar games (small number skirmish games). Suppose because of time or money you can only afford to get one of them. That person has to make a choice. Lets say they choose Kill Team. The spend on Necromunda has been reduced. Now you could say well in 6 months when the painting load has reduced you can pick up Necromunda - however that assumes there isn't some new flashy toy in 6 months. If that continues then the money never gets spent on Necromunda. Now if that applies equally across everyone but the split is more equal it means both Kill Team and Necromunda have lost out. It's why a lot of businesses fail (not that Im suggesting GW is going to fail at the current time). They see a large growth and expand considerably without really looking at the details of the growth. If that goes to far and then there is a contraction you are suddenly left with a lot of capital spend that is no longer viable. It works on the assumption that growth can be sustained.

 Whirlwind wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Good news is you don't HAVE to play everything. What this however allows is catching many players who wouldn't be interested in your products. If you only sell 2-3 items you won't get as large customer base as you would get with 6-7 products.

Sure individual player might not be able to get 6-7 but so what? Everybody isn't interested about everything.

That's not really correct because it assumes that the market base is infinitely large and has infinite ability to spend money/time on the hobby which it isn't. What can happen is that games start cannibalising sales of other systems that GW produces. In effect each product has less sales reducing the overall margins on all of the games. That can make the long term viability of some games much worse.

For example lets suppose you are interested in both Necromunda and Kill Team. They both being fundamentally similar games (small number skirmish games). Suppose because of time or money you can only afford to get one of them. That person has to make a choice. Lets say they choose Kill Team. The spend on Necromunda has been reduced. Now you could say well in 6 months when the painting load has reduced you can pick up Necromunda - however that assumes there isn't some new flashy toy in 6 months. If that continues then the money never gets spent on Necromunda. Now if that applies equally across everyone but the split is more equal it means both Kill Team and Necromunda have lost out. It's why a lot of businesses fail (not that Im suggesting GW is going to fail at the current time). They see a large growth and expand considerably without really looking at the details of the growth. If that goes to far and then there is a contraction you are suddenly left with a lot of capital spend that is no longer viable. It works on the assumption that growth can be sustained.

But that's only true when you consider those things in isolation. You also have to factor in the people who want both and will buy both, and would other wise have spend the additional money on another hobby or a kickstarter rather than GW product. There are also the people who're not interested in Necromunda, but are interested in Kill Team. Or the people who play one of the "main" games, get bored, and go looking for something different, who will be more likely to remain within GW's ecosystem with a broader selection of SGs since it's more probably they'll find something that exactly fits their taste and mood without having to look elsewhere. Releasing only Necromunda might prevent the first group that you mention from splitting their spending, but it also guarantees that you lose out on the revenue from all the others.

Now, GW could get their estimates wrong about how many of each group there are and how worthwhile it is to cater to any given niche, which would cost them, but it's not as simple as the zero sum you present.

The thing is so long as each game retains enough customers to remain viable then there's a market for it. Considering that Bloodbowl was still running tournaments and how many skirmish level KS have been financed over the last few years there is clearly enough money for several product lines in the market. GW is taking full advantage of their previous lines; of their brand and marketing to re-dominate the market in several sectors.

I think its an attitude change away from having just one big money earner (space marines) and diversifying their range and having profitable ranges that are not "as" profitable as some others, but which ar still viable on their own terms.

 schoon wrote:

okcgamerguy wrote:
Just want to throw this out there.

The game was poorly released, no one can argue that I think.

(snip)

I'd disagree based on my experience.

Granted, with a kid and work, my hobby time is a trifle limited, but by the time I have my terrain and Warlords ready for play, the Reavers will be out. And the time needed to get those ready will carry me to the Warhound release date.

I fully acknowledge that for someone wanting to play with all the toys "today," this isn't ideal, but I doubt I'll even notice.

And regardless of how people feel about the pricing, my pocketbook is glad for the respite between releases.

So it might not be quite as botched as you think. I get the feeling GW intentionally went with a "slow burn" release schedule.

Second this.

It feels like GW actually thought this out and decided not to push everything at once which saves money


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Good news is you don't HAVE to play everything. What this however allows is catching many players who wouldn't be interested in your products. If you only sell 2-3 items you won't get as large customer base as you would get with 6-7 products.

Sure individual player might not be able to get 6-7 but so what? Everybody isn't interested about everything.

That's not really correct because it assumes that the market base is infinitely large and has infinite ability to spend money/time on the hobby which it isn't. What can happen is that games start cannibalising sales of other systems that GW produces. In effect each product has less sales reducing the overall margins on all of the games. That can make the long term viability of some games much worse.

For example lets suppose you are interested in both Necromunda and Kill Team. They both being fundamentally similar games (small number skirmish games). Suppose because of time or money you can only afford to get one of them. That person has to make a choice. Lets say they choose Kill Team. The spend on Necromunda has been reduced. Now you could say well in 6 months when the painting load has reduced you can pick up Necromunda - however that assumes there isn't some new flashy toy in 6 months. If that continues then the money never gets spent on Necromunda. Now if that applies equally across everyone but the split is more equal it means both Kill Team and Necromunda have lost out. It's why a lot of businesses fail (not that Im suggesting GW is going to fail at the current time). They see a large growth and expand considerably without really looking at the details of the growth. If that goes to far and then there is a contraction you are suddenly left with a lot of capital spend that is no longer viable. It works on the assumption that growth can be sustained.

But that's only true when you consider those things in isolation. You also have to factor in the people who want both and will buy both, and would other wise have spend the additional money on another hobby or a kickstarter rather than GW product. There are also the people who're not interested in Necromunda, but are interested in Kill Team. Or the people who play one of the "main" games, get bored, and go looking for something different, who will be more likely to remain within GW's ecosystem with a broader selection of SGs since it's more probably they'll find something that exactly fits their taste and mood without having to look elsewhere. Releasing only Necromunda might prevent the first group that you mention from splitting their spending, but it also guarantees that you lose out on the revenue from all the others.

Now, GW could get their estimates wrong about how many of each group there are and how worthwhile it is to cater to any given niche, which would cost them, but it's not as simple as the zero sum you present.

One reason it was a good idea for GW to start off at a large set. It allowed them to gauge the serious side of the market and extrapolate from there. More is great sure but when you have mass sales you have a drop off rate after a time. Interest wanes or people get what they wanted and stop buying. So having weapon sprues and expandable inventory is a great thing. Bad to start for those nterested but great for the long run.

 Yodhrin wrote:
But that's only true when you consider those things in isolation. You also have to factor in the people who want both and will buy both, and would other wise have spend the additional money on another hobby or a kickstarter rather than GW product. There are also the people who're not interested in Necromunda, but are interested in Kill Team. Or the people who play one of the "main" games, get bored, and go looking for something different, who will be more likely to remain within GW's ecosystem with a broader selection of SGs since it's more probably they'll find something that exactly fits their taste and mood without having to look elsewhere. Releasing only Necromunda might prevent the first group that you mention from splitting their spending, but it also guarantees that you lose out on the revenue from all the others.

Now, GW could get their estimates wrong about how many of each group there are and how worthwhile it is to cater to any given niche, which would cost them, but it's not as simple as the zero sum you present.

Yeah. My spendings on GW decreased when GW dropped epic armageddon and then some more when fantasy was killed off. 40k is all fine and good but there's still only finite amount of money I'm willing to spend on that game. Remove options...Well that money doesn't go 100% to 40k. No. Some MIGHT go or what actually happened was the money I spent on non-40k went actually totally elsewhere.

GW mistakenly thinking it doesn't matter how many games they provide, people will spend equal amount for GW, is what drove GW away from specialist games. But there are shock horror people who will buy game A but not game B. So if you sell only game B you will lose customers who would buy game A. Of course there are players who would spend same amount of money to one game as two game buying both games reducing profit margin but there's also people who will buy both games AND spend more money...

Yeah there's technically limit but so far GW doesn't have that much games yet that they would really cannibalize each other. Different games appeal to different markets. Just because you like Blood Bowl doesn't mean you will be interested in 40k or AT.

 Lysenis wrote:
So, which other kit comes with 11 full sprues and 6 half sprues, full rules, dice, cards, and other accessories?

Kill Team? I mean, I'm not completely sure, but I think it packs at least that. Dem scenery sprues are really big, and the GSC and skitarii boxes are 5 sprues by themselves.

As to the OP question, I don't think the game is a bust at all. I personally have not bought it for multiple reasons (cost, size of the minis, I already have Battletech which offers a similar experience... it's complicated), and over here is moving slowly, but people is getting stuff, painting and playing, and I believe they're doing it in sufficient numbers to call the release a success. Time will tell if the game has staying power or not, but that's gaming life for you.

The GSC and Skitarii sprues will have already paid for themselves by a wide margin though so will cost GW literally a few pence worth of power and plastic pellets to make, while every sprue in Titanicus is brand new.