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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

A.T. wrote:
GW are really dragging this out with minimal content aren't they.

They seem to have lost their bottle when it comes to previews. I mean, the Warhammer Fest that we just had spent a good chunk of its time showing us stuff we've already seen.

But now you get to see the same stuff compared to similarly painted Space Marines! Ain't that exciting?

Yeah, they're dragging it out. It's still GW. It's still GW's fear of third party manufacturers making the decisions. We're not going to see anything amazing because the release is still six months off. If it's a no-brainer and basically already available in metal, they'll show it. If not, just go back to sleep and come again in three months.

The promo model from the AS artwork looks great. 100% purchase for me. Flight stands for the seraphim are unnecessary but I am not affected because I already own a 10-woman unit of them. It´s also a plus that they didn´t deviate from the original design and therefore the new girls won´t look out of place when included in an army with my AS cougars.

I am also intrigued how they handle the repentia squad. In the good old days they gave them "female armour" which meant running around half naked but getting the same save as a schmuck in carapace armour. Sadly, this will certainly be a thing of the past.

Thanks all who answered on the new flight stand!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I've got £10 sez the Kopinski model will be the new Store Anniversary model.

I have it on good authority one is coming, and seems a decent way to push it, and create extra demand.

I thought they said we will be able to pre-order it soon?

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind, Sisters of Battle were originally taken out of continuation (i.e. inventing nothing new) because they sold extremely poorly when they were out the first time. I suspect times and technology have changed enough and GW's selling more minis than ever that they can afford to take a risk --- but Sisters players better buy a ton. If it's a sales flop you'll never see another release...ever, lol.

Mind you, GW has a record of discontinuing products even if they immediately sell out of all stock. Black Industries, anyone?

Just Tony wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind, Sisters of Battle were originally taken out of continuation (i.e. inventing nothing new) because they sold extremely poorly when they were out the first time. I suspect times and technology have changed enough and GW's selling more minis than ever that they can afford to take a risk --- but Sisters players better buy a ton. If it's a sales flop you'll never see another release...ever, lol.

The ONLY reason I never started a Sisters army is because of how much I detest pewter miniatures. So much so that I'm actively replacing everything metal from every army I own.

Bingo, same for me.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I've got £10 sez the Kopinski model will be the new Store Anniversary model.

I have it on good authority one is coming, and seems a decent way to push it, and create extra demand.

I thought they said we will be able to pre-order it soon?

They said there’ll be more details on how we can get it soon.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I've got £10 sez the Kopinski model will be the new Store Anniversary model.

I have it on good authority one is coming, and seems a decent way to push it, and create extra demand.

I thought they said we will be able to pre-order it soon?

Soon TM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Just Tony wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind, Sisters of Battle were originally taken out of continuation (i.e. inventing nothing new) because they sold extremely poorly when they were out the first time. I suspect times and technology have changed enough and GW's selling more minis than ever that they can afford to take a risk --- but Sisters players better buy a ton. If it's a sales flop you'll never see another release...ever, lol.

The ONLY reason I never started a Sisters army is because of how much I detest pewter miniatures. So much so that I'm actively replacing everything metal from every army I own.

Bingo, same for me.

Here here, except I did start a SIsters army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind, Sisters of Battle were originally taken out of continuation (i.e. inventing nothing new) because they sold extremely poorly when they were out the first time. I suspect times and technology have changed enough and GW's selling more minis than ever that they can afford to take a risk --- but Sisters players better buy a ton. If it's a sales flop you'll never see another release...ever, lol.

Mind you, GW has a record of discontinuing products even if they immediately sell out of all stock. Black Industries, anyone?

The initial market blast from pent up demand will be eye-watering, there's no doubt about that. There's 5500 dollars between me and another SoB player on B&C alone.

The problem comes in sustaining the demand enough that further support is something they have incentive to do, and that's on GW. If the new options/units are bad or ugly, or god forbid BOTH, they won't sell long term. If the kits are poorly set up so that building a single 5 girl squad of infantry takes between 120-240$ (2-4 kits) They won't sell long term. If the codex is ANYWHERE NEAR as terrible, boring, and lazy as the beta codex is, the army will fail to attract new players.

Initial sales will be very impressive because of the massive amount of lead in time we have for people already planning on building the army to save up. Everything after that depends on how good GW is at making an army that draws in new players. The sculpts need to be on point, the lore needs to be at least passable, and the rules need to be a damn sight better than the dreck we slogging along with right now.

I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Try meeting tournament players, then. You'll be sure to find people who chose their army based on how it does at tournaments. And then explain to you how super fluffy their army is and that its being based on the latest busted thing is an unfortunate coincidence.

There are enough players out their for whom the game is their preferred part of the hobby, and game mechanics are the deciding factor for whether they'll consider an army or not. That doesn't even have anything to do with tournaments or competition. In my experience casual players are even more affected by this than competitive ones. They don't just have to worry that their army is underpower or non-functional, but want to avoid being overpowered as well and ruin their and their opponent's fun.

Rules sell models, like it or not. They're not the only consideration, but they are a consideration.

If the rules have a soup friendly element, that let’s them splash a niche they are good at into other armies, that would help sales.

There are a lot of people out there who pick up units for the rules. It might not be enough for them to start a new army, but you don’t need to go all-in these days. If (for example) splashing in 5 sisters, a HQ and a immolator let you leverage some strat to do broken things, you just sold 3 units. Until it gets nerfed, but that’s chasing the competitive meta for you.

 Geifer wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Try meeting tournament players, then. You'll be sure to find people who chose their army based on how it does at tournaments. And then explain to you how super fluffy their army is and that its being based on the latest busted thing is an unfortunate coincidence.

There are enough players out their for whom the game is their preferred part of the hobby, and game mechanics are the deciding factor for whether they'll consider an army or not. That doesn't even have anything to do with tournaments or competition. In my experience casual players are even more affected by this than competitive ones. They don't just have to worry that their army is underpower or non-functional, but want to avoid being overpowered as well and ruin their and their opponent's fun.

Rules sell models, like it or not. They're not the only consideration, but they are a consideration.

Interesting, but not my point, which is I don't think they're the majority. Games Workshop don't seem to either.

I seem to recall Jervis saying that most of GW's customers don't actually play the games at all.

So the relationship between rules and sales is always negligible.

You sure that wasn't Kirby? ".. otiose in a niche market" and all that whole speech?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Try meeting tournament players, then. You'll be sure to find people who chose their army based on how it does at tournaments. And then explain to you how super fluffy their army is and that its being based on the latest busted thing is an unfortunate coincidence.

There are enough players out their for whom the game is their preferred part of the hobby, and game mechanics are the deciding factor for whether they'll consider an army or not. That doesn't even have anything to do with tournaments or competition. In my experience casual players are even more affected by this than competitive ones. They don't just have to worry that their army is underpower or non-functional, but want to avoid being overpowered as well and ruin their and their opponent's fun.

Rules sell models, like it or not. They're not the only consideration, but they are a consideration.

Interesting, but not my point, which is I don't think they're the majority. Games Workshop don't seem to either.

It's evident that GW is making good profit with very, very shoddy rules. As such, I believe you are by and large correct.

I was going to write a good bit more, but it really boils down to: Just because a large enough part of their customer base is content with the current quality of rules doesn't mean they couldn't also extract more money from those other people wishing for better quality. GW is, after all, already paying those game designers. Might as well ask them to do their job properly while they're at it.

In the case of Sisters specifically, there's the added risk that as the single longest marketing endeavor GW has entered since they're doing marketing again, Sisters aren't going to be your run of the mill army update and fall under more scrutiny than other armies. I'm not sure a lax attitude towards rules, while standard for GW, will just be as easily dismissed if the rules turn out not to be great.

Which is really all this is about. If anything goes wrong with Sisters, you can be sure plenty of people will be quick to blame fans for not putting their money where their mouth is, when in reality there is no scenario were that failure doesn't fall at the feet of GW. It really has satrted already, with comments to the effect of "Sisters players had better buy tons of new models now GW is making them" when we as potential customers have very little idea of individual model quality and no idea at all about army cohesion, additional units, reimagined units, rules or background additions yet. thus the desire to do a good all round job on Sisters because if GW fails, blame won't fall on them as it should. Some of us don't look forward to dealing with that kind of nonsense.

That's my take anyway.

Cross your fingers that we have not so bad rules and not so bad kit contents, because the number of people waiting to jump on this is huge.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Thanks all who answered on the new flight stand!

Some of us like those new stands...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoggintheNog wrote:
I seem to recall Jervis saying that most of GW's customers don't actually play the games at all.

So the relationship between rules and sales is always negligible.

I suspect that this is a jest. The playing community is quite large and growing by the day, compared to what it was like when I started.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Hi. My name is ERJAK and I bought an entire space marine army to rin gladius strike force in 7th.

In fact, outside of Sisters themselves ALL of my purchases are tournament driven. And I'm not the only one even just in my area.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Try meeting tournament players, then. You'll be sure to find people who chose their army based on how it does at tournaments. And then explain to you how super fluffy their army is and that its being based on the latest busted thing is an unfortunate coincidence.

There are enough players out their for whom the game is their preferred part of the hobby, and game mechanics are the deciding factor for whether they'll consider an army or not. That doesn't even have anything to do with tournaments or competition. In my experience casual players are even more affected by this than competitive ones. They don't just have to worry that their army is underpower or non-functional, but want to avoid being overpowered as well and ruin their and their opponent's fun.

Rules sell models, like it or not. They're not the only consideration, but they are a consideration.

Interesting, but not my point, which is I don't think they're the majority. Games Workshop don't seem to either.

It's certainly the majority of new players. As well as the majority of sustained purchasing as people buy new units to add as allies.

The flipside is more important though. Even if you don't believe good rules sell models, bad rules certainly STOP selling models. Not a whole lot of people out there buying new Grey Knights models, eh?

And what GW thinks about the marketplace doesn't and has never really mattered. They weren't going to do plastic Sisters at all until 100k+ people asked for them on the community survey.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoggintheNog wrote:
I seem to recall Jervis saying that most of GW's customers don't actually play the games at all.

So the relationship between rules and sales is always negligible.

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm but if not:

1. What else are they buying them for? Fancy paperweights? The models are good, but they're not that good except for the most hardcore fluff bunny enthusiast. You'd also certainly never sell multiples of the same kit. I'd say less than 10% of people buying models doesn't use them to play any game.

2. Jervis is a designer, how would he know?

3. The relationship between rules and sales has always determined the top selling models in their lines and is why Sigmar was about 6 months away from tanking the whole company on release.

So it sounds like no word on a release date? Just “More Details soon.”

On the what sells models discussion, I suspect Rules is a huge driver for tournament players, obviously. I certainly don’t have a feel for ratio of casual vs competition driven players

For the sisters, my wife isn’t planning on going to tournaments. But she is very interested in sisters for use to play casually, and we will be dropping fat stacks, most likely, regardless of how great they are

ERJAK wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:
I seem to recall Jervis saying that most of GW's customers don't actually play the games at all.

So the relationship between rules and sales is always negligible.

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm but if not:

1. What else are they buying them for? Fancy paperweights? The models are good, but they're not that good except for the most hardcore fluff bunny enthusiast. You'd also certainly never sell multiples of the same kit. I'd say less than 10% of people buying models doesn't use them to play any game.

2. Jervis is a designer, how would he know?

3. The relationship between rules and sales has always determined the top selling models in their lines and is why Sigmar was about 6 months away from tanking the whole company on release.

It's better than sarcasm. It's Kirby.

According to Kirby, GW's customers buy what GW produces and no customer feedback is required. That was the whole thing about market research being otiose.

Further, allegedly a GW spokesperson, also during Kirby's time at an investor meeting, responded to an investor's inquiry that GW's customers were divided into 20% buying the models for their games and 80% buying them for collecting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
So it sounds like no word on a release date? Just “More Details soon.”

Latest is "still on track for 2019". As from the beginning, it's still best to assume a release around November,

Emperor willing

ERJAK wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm not sure that there's as much of a correlation between the "quality" of an army and the sales of the models. Perhaps for the internet community, but in general? I've never met a single person who admitted to choosing their army based on how well it does at tournaments.

Hi. My name is ERJAK and I bought an entire space marine army to rin gladius strike force in 7th.

In fact, outside of Sisters themselves ALL of my purchases are tournament driven. And I'm not the only one even just in my area.

Great. My point still stands, as I've never met you. There are two assertions being made here; one, that the majority of miniatures sales are to gamers, and in particular gamers who primarily attend tournaments, and the other, which is that the majority of sales are to non-gamers. Neither you nor I have any evidence to support either of those assertions, but one is backed up by statements from senior employees of Games Workshop, who are more likely to know.

NoggintheNog wrote:
I seem to recall Jervis saying that most of GW's customers don't actually play the games at all.

So the relationship between rules and sales is always negligible.

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm but if not:

1. What else are they buying them for? Fancy paperweights? The models are good, but they're not that good except for the most hardcore fluff bunny enthusiast. You'd also certainly never sell multiples of the same kit. I'd say less than 10% of people buying models doesn't use them to play any game.

2. Jervis is a designer, how would he know?

3. The relationship between rules and sales has always determined the top selling models in their lines and is why Sigmar was about 6 months away from tanking the whole company on release.

1. people buy miniatures to assemble, paint and display. What do you think Golden Demon or the Crystal brush are all about? Or to whom all the manufacturers of scale model kits, busts, statuettes, etc, are selling?

2. Jervis has been working for Games Workshop for three decades, and is in a fairly senior position (in both senses of the word); i wouldn't dismiss the idea that he has access to the sort of data to make that claim. He's certainly in a better position to make it than you or I are.

3. Your source for this is?

 Juicifer wrote:
Cross your fingers that we have not so bad rules and not so bayd kit contents, because the number of people waiting to jump on this is huge.

Is it really though? I mean sisters players were certainly loud but actually numerous, there's no actual evidence of this quite the opposite if were using reality. The survey is nice but I hope GW did not base all the projections on something that some hardcore Sisters fans filled in dozens of times.

Sisters tanked hard enough at release that the inquisition were effectively squated, deathwatch were gak canned for over a decade and Grey Knights got warded.

I had an interview at GW's HQ around 2009ish and got a tour of the site during this we passed through the warehouse and were talking about armies we played. At the time I played DH and I asked about any new releases. I was advised that was extremely unlikely as Sisters had not sold as well as hoped and that they still had boxes produced for the launch left over. I mean Squats outsold sisters by a large margin apparently.

I hope the new SoB are great and sell well because if not it likely kills any other big releases for the foreseeable future .

After conditioning their customers for five years to embrace the wonders of the new plastic age, GW released an all metal army and it failed to sell? Shocking.

Yeah. How can anyone doubt that Sisters will be popular when Genestealer Cults are, not only popular but so popular to deserve a second wave?

And Necromunda. And fething Adeptus Titanicus.

By 2009 I had quit years before waiting for plastic sisters of battle box.
They where expensive even back then over other army, and mail order as stores had limited space.
They where fairly limited as well, and where a bit of a struggle on the table at times.

Assume they are talking about the witch hunters book? They where popular there as well. But again so expensive that players that wanted them gave up simply due to supply issues.
(I may be mixing up the sisters releases at this point)
But reading that, in 2009 I would say “well no ****”

Now, I have a massive sisters of battle army. But not a single one has been new. So many players get half way building the army and leave for many reasons. But all I would count as GW failing to keep them.

Can’t even use them for kill team.

I do not like the flight stand, but I plan on implementing the same solution as I did for the old seraphim, and the inceptors:

Run galvanized aluminum wire from the hardware store through the nozzles of the backpack and into the base so they stand at the appropriate height, then cover the wire with green stuff, getting thicker at the base, then pick at it with dental tools to create makeshift smoke plumes.

16 or 18 gauge wire aught to do it, here's hoping there's no peg hole in her tabbard or something.

To be fair, I quite like the shape of the new flight stands, I think it gives you a more dynamic affect and certainly looks more appealing. Plus it’s designed to work with normal bases, rather than the goofy transparent ones. Just wish they’d thought about the practical elements of the design.

 Jadenim wrote:
To be fair, I quite like the shape of the new flight stands, I think it gives you a more dynamic affect and certainly looks more appealing. Plus it’s designed to work with normal bases, rather than the goofy transparent ones. Just wish they’d thought about the practical elements of the design.

even with the practicality off it, and how often they break. I also do not like them much for infantry as it means it limits pose, dont mind a few float or flight poses from the base, but i like infantry to be on the ground So they can be posed fighting or standing.
I even dislike how GW did Harlequin all jumping about, Just some idle or sneaking poses would have been great and look way better for the unit as a whole, as well as when you need larger groups of them.
It means i only have a single box of them, over getting a few. Huge thing for me and a huge selling point.

The new retributors look okay, but they don't quite thrill me. They look a little too plain or flat or something. There's a lot of empty space there. I kind of expected them to be more gothic or ornamental I suppose, maybe more built up?