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 have suggested GW does not refresh the lines to avoid the parasitic effects of upstaging the faction that brings people into the game, and there's probably more long-term value in keeping Space Marines fresh and other factions a little dated.

The biggest issue isn't lost sales, because each individual xenos/non marine playerbase is significantly smaller than the marines, but lack of engagement from the xenos playerbase. Marine players need non-marines to live out the power fantasy GW advertises, if xeno playerbase shrinks too much, or withdraws to their own small circle of players, it'll make marines play against other marines, and it will be less interesting and less satisfying for the marine players, and unsatisfied players don't buy as much as excited customers.

Cronch wrote:

I have suggested GW does not refresh the lines to avoid the parasitic effects of upstaging the faction that brings people into the game, and there's probably more long-term value in keeping Space Marines fresh and other factions a little dated.

The biggest issue isn't lost sales, because each individual xenos/non marine playerbase is significantly smaller than the marines, but lack of engagement from the xenos playerbase. Marine players need non-marines to live out the power fantasy GW advertises, if xeno playerbase shrinks too much, or withdraws to their own small circle of players, it'll make marines play against other marines, and it will be less interesting and less satisfying for the marine players, and unsatisfied players don't buy as much as excited customers.

This is a huge part of marketing and sales, if only one model line exists, and most model lines essentially disappear on the board, people become less invested and will not care as much for the setting. Remember GW needs to have a rabid fanbase to sell more models if they start to lose engagement then they lose that business permanently and the main reason why GW does so well is because of all the factors that go into making 40k what it is now from its design, to its story, to its tabletop, there is also a consideration of Whales. People who buy a lot of models and continue to buy lots of models, if you lose their business that is potentially harmful to the entire strategy GW has, and not engaging players might als harm other players more if there is no engagement for them to partake in.

drbored wrote:

It's like many people have said, Space Marines aren't interesting without real threats to face.

Okey, but necron, orks are doing as well as marines right now, harlis, custodes and demons are doing better then majority of marines lists. And on top of that all the different marines sitting around 50/50 win rate can easily play against each other, and they have enough different builds to last a long time. So when is w40k going to be considered okey? When the bottom 3-4 armies become 50/50 win rate. I wouldn't mind, as my dudes are in those 3 armies right now, but I don't think there was never a time in w40k history, where all armies 50/50 win rate or close to it. And from data it seems like 9th, aside for maybe harlequins being too good, is one of the edition with the largest number of armies sitting close to or around 50% win rate. I don't think GW can ever do better then that.

Karol wrote:

drbored wrote:

It's like many people have said, Space Marines aren't interesting without real threats to face.

Okey, but necron, orks are doing as well as marines right now, harlis, custodes and demons are doing better then majority of marines lists. And on top of that all the different marines sitting around 50/50 win rate can easily play against each other, and they have enough different builds to last a long time. So when is w40k going to be considered okey? When the bottom 3-4 armies become 50/50 win rate. I wouldn't mind, as my dudes are in those 3 armies right now, but I don't think there was never a time in w40k history, where all armies 50/50 win rate or close to it. And from data it seems like 9th, aside for maybe harlequins being too good, is one of the edition with the largest number of armies sitting close to or around 50% win rate. I don't think GW can ever do better then that.

You're looking at it from a gaming/meta standpoint.

I'm talking about a model-release standpoint.

If you take your shiny new space marines and go up against a guy whose models, that he just bought, are from 3rd or 5th edition, it's... a complex feeling.

It's an imbalance in releases. Someone goes to the shelves and sees a huge section devoted to space marines. They get to their chosen/favorite faction and they see half a shelf of models. It's kind of disheartening.

Then you turn around and see the AoS side of things where everything is actually pretty even, with some discrepancy for whatever is the new hotness.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Without NPCs to beat up Marines lose appeal, though. I know my interest in 40k has continued to dwindle with wave after wave of Marines. It's too much.

Since the onset of 8th how many new kits for marines have we got, verses for everyone else?

Last tournament I went to was 50-60% space Marines. We had 2 ork players (myself included), a Nid player, a single tau player, 2 eldar players, 1 Imperial Guard player and than 2-3 Chaos type players. Let me tell you how boring it was to face off against those Marine players. I know that I was excited when I got to play non-power armored opponents and the feeling was mutual throughout most of the event. I know a few people who have "dropped" out of the hobby because its so mono-directional in game play these days. They will bounce back every few months or so to check in but otherwise they are AFK.

SemperMortis wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Without NPCs to beat up Marines lose appeal, though. I know my interest in 40k has continued to dwindle with wave after wave of Marines. It's too much.

Since the onset of 8th how many new kits for marines have we got, verses for everyone else?

Last tournament I went to was 50-60% space Marines. We had 2 ork players (myself included), a Nid player, a single tau player, 2 eldar players, 1 Imperial Guard player and than 2-3 Chaos type players. Let me tell you how boring it was to face off against those Marine players. I know that I was excited when I got to play non-power armored opponents and the feeling was mutual throughout most of the event. I know a few people who have "dropped" out of the hobby because its so mono-directional in game play these days. They will bounce back every few months or so to check in but otherwise they are AFK.

My club had this problem a few years back. It was just Marines all the time and it sucked. It's one of the reasons why I started a Tyranid army.

 techsoldaten wrote:


GW, historically, has made many crazy mistakes. Those are worth talking about, the contrast between Kirby-era GW and Roundtree-era GW is night and day. It's not the same company.

True enough. They upgraded PR department. As all that changed was they learned to market same stuff better.

NuGW is old GW with improved PR to give impression they listen to customers.

OT: Former Space Marine player, losing interest in 40k thanks to Space Marines. "Does anyone have this feeling?" Yes.

 techsoldaten wrote:
GW, historically, has made many crazy mistakes. Those are worth talking about, the contrast between Kirby-era GW and Roundtree-era GW is night and day. It's not the same company.

Genuinely asking: How crazy are we talking?

tneva82 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


GW, historically, has made many crazy mistakes. Those are worth talking about, the contrast between Kirby-era GW and Roundtree-era GW is night and day. It's not the same company.

True enough. They upgraded PR department. As all that changed was they learned to market same stuff better.

NuGW is old GW with improved PR to give impression they listen to customers.

I totally agree.
I'd even argue that the community good-will generated by them actually marketing their stuff has rather gone to their head. Leading to them taking many liberties with customers, such as the app or general pricing.

If it wasn't for the pricing, their sales would rocket even higher, especially after this virus stuff. It's the price that shuts down many dreams to play before they can even grow. I know, as I've talked to many could have been players and price is invariably the hurdle too high to get over.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
If it wasn't for the pricing, their sales would rocket even higher, especially after this virus stuff. It's the price that shuts down many dreams to play before they can even grow. I know, as I've talked to many could have been players and price is invariably the hurdle too high to get over.

my original plans for R&H were far smaller because i accumulated at the time money for it. And when i had it together the whole range got oop, so i went with a substitute, with superior quality for lower money. it was at that stage i realised just how overpriced GW is for what it offers.

CEO Kasen wrote:OT: Former Space Marine player, losing interest in 40k thanks to Space Marines. "Does anyone have this feeling?" Yes.

 techsoldaten wrote:
GW, historically, has made many crazy mistakes. Those are worth talking about, the contrast between Kirby-era GW and Roundtree-era GW is night and day. It's not the same company.

Genuinely asking: How crazy are we talking?

Easier to characterize mistakes than point to specifics.

- They never treated rules a core function of the business. Books would get written with serious defects and not updated for 4+ years.

- They screwed up early IP licensing deals for video games. It was so bad, Dawn of War almost didn't get made. Licensing and partnerships were downright adversarial.

- They treated their employees like spies to stop leaks. Disaffected a lot of people, drove many of them to Mantic.

- Expensive lawfare that netted them little. Thinking about Chapterhouse, but I know there were other lawsuits.

- The business model was built around hooking teenagers when they are young and letting them walk away when they learn the value of money.

- Finances. Going back to 2014, there were a lot of doors left open for corporate shenanigans. GW's always fit the profile of a standard small cap but I think analysts had a hard time explaining it's success. Which may have been the only thing that kept it from becoming a Mattel brand.

AngryAngel80 wrote:If it wasn't for the pricing, their sales would rocket even higher, especially after this virus stuff. It's the price that shuts down many dreams to play before they can even grow. I know, as I've talked to many could have been players and price is invariably the hurdle too high to get over.

Not sure they want to increase sales at the expense of profit.

GW is famous for paying dividends, which is why the PE Ratio is so important. Shareholders get big checks at the end of the year.

If GW sold twice as many kits for the same amount of profit, investors would start to walk away.

But I agree with the basic point, they could sell more models if they had lower prices.

Karol wrote:
So when is w40k going to be considered okey? When the bottom 3-4 armies become 50/50 win rate. I wouldn't mind, as my dudes are in those 3 armies right now, but I don't think there was never a time in w40k history, where all armies 50/50 win rate or close to it. And from data it seems like 9th, aside for maybe harlequins being too good, is one of the edition with the largest number of armies sitting close to or around 50% win rate. I don't think GW can ever do better then that.

Try 5th edition. That was literally the only one where you could take book released first (SM/IG) against these released last (GK/Necrons) and have a fair, fun fight (as long as you didn't insist on only bringing the models other army countered). That on top of every army having multiple fun builds and troop swap options. Alas, stupid morons whined the one competent game designer GW had out of company because they didn't like a single line of fluff he wrote and we had to make do with likes of Phil Kelly ever since. Go figure...

SemperMortis wrote:
Last tournament I went to was 50-60% space Marines. We had 2 ork players (myself included), a Nid player, a single tau player, 2 eldar players, 1 Imperial Guard player and than 2-3 Chaos type players. Let me tell you how boring it was to face off against those Marine players. I know that I was excited when I got to play non-power armored opponents and the feeling was mutual throughout most of the event. I know a few people who have "dropped" out of the hobby because its so mono-directional in game play these days. They will bounce back every few months or so to check in but otherwise they are AFK.

Funny, because now you know how SM players felt for nearly a decade facing Taudar nonsense. Scatbikes that, riptidewing this, serpentspam, aspects getting 2+ rerollable BS just for existing, invincible drones, 190 pts knights, that garbage was vastly more broken than anything SM can do in 8th or 9th - but funnily enough SM players admit there is a problem (and there is a ton of people who think kicking squats to 2W was idiotic move) while Taudar players were screeching game is tOtEs BaLaNcEd the whole time and pretending everything is okay because they got to win just for picking the army. 'These days' you say?

In my store we fluctuate. We had tournaments where of the 10 armies present, 8 were loyalist space marines.

The next tournament, people expecting others to bring their space marines, used other armies (Tau in my case), we had literally 0 marines.

But thats something that can happen when people has more than one army. I don't know anyone that ONLY plays marines.

Funny, because now you know how SM players felt for nearly a decade facing Taudar nonsense. Scatbikes that, riptidewing this, serpentspam, aspects getting 2+ rerollable BS just for existing, invincible drones, 190 pts knights, that garbage was vastly more broken than anything SM can do in 8th or 9th - but funnily enough SM players admit there is a problem (and there is a ton of people who think kicking squats to 2W was idiotic move) while Taudar players were screeching game is tOtEs BaLaNcEd the whole time and pretending everything is okay because they got to win just for picking the army. 'These days' you say?

The issue with Marines is everybody has them so when Space Marines are really good you will see a larger skew in the gaming groups as a lot of people can field Space Marines. When a smaller faction is really good you won't see a greater proliferation of them on a local level. I mean, I have played Dark Angels a handful of times in my life but I still have about 15.000 points worth of them because Space Marines are everywhere and in every box(and I am lazy at selling stuff, but that's another discussion).

Currently participating in a tourney next weekend and considering early registration I am about to engage with 70-80% Space Marine player base. Can't say I am excited about it. Even our resident Tau/GSC player is bringing Space Marines. I never experienced this type of skew in any other edition.

As a DE player, i just want 3-4 more HQ's, thats it, literally thats all I want.

1 Vect: Everyone else got their big baddy, I want mine
2 Baron: A cool unique HQ that everyone loved and added fun to the army
3 HQ with Fly: So I don't have to foot slug all over and feel fast, also Venoms and Raiders are 5 and 10 mans, adding a HQ sucks and doesn't feel right most the time (Bike, wings, skyboard)
4 Merch HQ: Optional one like a Mandrake, Incubi, Scourge, etc.. either any of them, just something.

Dracons, Ancients, etc.. can be with the same models we have now.

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm lost profits at this point, at least for craftworld eldar.

I've got rigged up 3d models of most of the aspects at this point that I can put in any pose I want, and I've got a printer that can make them for 50c a miniature. If the howling banshees are anything to go off of, that's a cool 95% discount. If thoughout all 9 months of quarantine, I'd gotten some kind of model release for any of my unholy number of 40k armies, I most likely would have spend 250 bucks on that release instead of on my printer.

yep, Artel W is an even easier alternative than getting into 3d printing. Tons of eldar players are jumping on their minis instead of giving GW a cent. And i know many other source their minis from "alternative" sellers for a fraction of what GW would ask for their gakky finecast or overpriced Banshees/Incubi.

I mean, I guess they're a little bit cheaper, but honestly I'd just go for whatever is more aesthetically pleasing. 50$ for 6 vs 55$ for 5 isn't that much of a price differential.

the price doesn't bother me, its the quality of the sculpts. I'd gladly pay 50$ for 6 dynamic and modern warp spiders rather than 40$ for 5 copypasted finecast ones.

So what you're saying is that we should enjoy Space Marines before the super-powered Tyranid codex is released!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm lost profits at this point, at least for craftworld eldar.

I've got rigged up 3d models of most of the aspects at this point that I can put in any pose I want, and I've got a printer that can make them for 50c a miniature. If the howling banshees are anything to go off of, that's a cool 95% discount. If thoughout all 9 months of quarantine, I'd gotten some kind of model release for any of my unholy number of 40k armies, I most likely would have spend 250 bucks on that release instead of on my printer.

yep, Artel W is an even easier alternative than getting into 3d printing. Tons of eldar players are jumping on their minis instead of giving GW a cent. And i know many other source their minis from "alternative" sellers for a fraction of what GW would ask for their gakky finecast or overpriced Banshees/Incubi.

I mean, I guess they're a little bit cheaper, but honestly I'd just go for whatever is more aesthetically pleasing. 50$ for 6 vs 55$ for 5 isn't that much of a price differential.

the price doesn't bother me, its the quality of the sculpts. I'd gladly pay 50$ for 6 dynamic and modern warp spiders rather than 40$ for 5 copypasted finecast ones.

Well yeah, OK, obviously when it comes to the 26 year old warp spiders literally anything is better, I was more comparing the GW banshees to the artel banshees and honestly I'd buy GW. The artel ones design isn't as good IMO.

Actually artel apparently had a different design for banshees that made them look like they were wearing bones and they gave that away for free as an STL file - I have it, it kicks ass and it's what I'm using as my 3d printed file for banshees, if I ever fething needed more banshees good lord I think I have 20 from various editions.

But yeah, artel void spinners >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW warp spiders. Holy cow. They're the only aspect warrior I could never stomach getting GW, even though I have nearly 2k points of ancient old edition eldar metals. I own the doofy rocket hat dark reapers and I won't field warp spiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a DE player, i just want 3-4 more HQ's, thats it, literally thats all I want.

1 Vect: Everyone else got their big baddy, I want mine
2 Baron: A cool unique HQ that everyone loved and added fun to the army
3 HQ with Fly: So I don't have to foot slug all over and feel fast, also Venoms and Raiders are 5 and 10 mans, adding a HQ sucks and doesn't feel right most the time (Bike, wings, skyboard)
4 Merch HQ: Optional one like a Mandrake, Incubi, Scourge, etc.. either any of them, just something.

Dracons, Ancients, etc.. can be with the same models we have now.

Yes, please, something, anything.

Just for christ's sake make a lieutenant-equivalent for each sub-division that you can make out of the sergeants for the basic troop kit, it's SO fething EASY. And because GW sells units usually in min sizes I don't understand how that wouldn't be a win for them. Like, if I'm going to buy a second reaver squad to build one reaver as a bike archon and then field 1 unit of 5-man reavers, how is that not better for GW than me buying a single box of reavers and a less expensive footslogging archon? Or if I want to use one of my Acothysts as a new, theoretical haemonculus lieutenant-equivalent character, so I buy another box of Wracks and I build a couple of them as vehicle crew (which is an optional thing you can do, it's included as a kit if you want to have a Wrack Venom or Raider gunner you can choose to build one of your wracks with arms to make him a gunner) that's literally just 'GW Gets More of my fething Money.'

Less options means I buy less stuff, GW. I'm not gonna go third party because spoiler alert, a third party sculpt that is good enough quality to compete with an Acothyst from your wracks box is probably going to be MORE EXPENSIVE because its not going to come with FOUR OTHER DUDES I can use in my army!

Why make you buy a second box of reavers to make one or two characters, or even worse 3, when they can sell a box that costs almost as much as the unit, and by selling it they do not risk that left over models hit the secondary market, making people pay less for models?

They are a monopolist, If they make a rules that are really good or required for the army to work, most people very much are going to buy those things. There is a reason why stuff like oblits and riptides sell out, and melee oblits do not.

In 8th, dark reapers were resin models or recasts. highly sought after. I have my doubts the same was true for something like warp spiders or scorpions.

Attack bikes are so popular right now, that my area run out of resin, because every marine player wanted 6. Although that may have to be linked to the fact that, GW didn't flood our stores with Indomitus boxs. Creating a big shortage of blade guards and eradictors.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Karol wrote:
So when is w40k going to be considered okey? When the bottom 3-4 armies become 50/50 win rate. I wouldn't mind, as my dudes are in those 3 armies right now, but I don't think there was never a time in w40k history, where all armies 50/50 win rate or close to it. And from data it seems like 9th, aside for maybe harlequins being too good, is one of the edition with the largest number of armies sitting close to or around 50% win rate. I don't think GW can ever do better then that.

Try 5th edition. That was literally the only one where you could take book released first (SM/IG) against these released last (GK/Necrons) and have a fair, fun fight (as long as you didn't insist on only bringing the models other army countered). That on top of every army having multiple fun builds and troop swap options. Alas, stupid morons whined the one competent game designer GW had out of company because they didn't like a single line of fluff he wrote and we had to make do with likes of Phil Kelly ever since. Go figure...

I will try that. Although I never saw anyone play older editions around here. I can imagine why people don't want to play 8th now, or maybe why they wanted to play 7th durning 8th ed, but I never saw anyone even ask about prior editions, aside for horror stories about other factions.

Karol wrote:
Why make you buy a second box of reavers to make one or two characters, or even worse 3, when they can sell a box that costs almost as much as the unit, and by selling it they do not risk that left over models hit the secondary market, making people pay less for models?

because that would be a customer friendly move to do instead of the current "lawyers decide" no model no rules bs. At least if No model No rules was applied to every army evenly that would be pretty nice, but noooo. We cant have a succubus on jetbike or Lord on bike but Marines can get a captain on bike even if there is no model for it.

I think the *typical* 40K gamer has an average 2-year lifespan or so. The first year is filled with ramping up - getting and painting models, learning the game. About six months of happiness, and then a slow decline and disinterest as frustration slowly sets in. At least, that’s been my observation over the years.

Note, I wouldn’t ascribe the forum members of Dakka as “typical”, as I believe most forum members here would be better described as enthusiasts, even though they might have moved away from 40k proper.

Playing Warhammer is a pretty good antidote for wanting to play Warhammer; which is to say that Warhammer looks like it should be so cool to play. There's all this terrain and these models, and you can move them around on the board. Even calling games 'battles' lends an air of excitement and anticipation. The experience is something else. Either games are over in a demoralizing 1-2 turns and all that time setting up seems like it was wasted, or it drags on 6 turns of armies grinding each other down unit by unit. It's never what you hoped it would be, and never as good as you remember it being.

I mean, I keep looking at my armies and thinking maybe I should try a game, but then I remember the sore back from leaning over the table, sore feet from standing, sore throat from talking for hours, and trying to navigate that feeling of disappointment if I win because my dice were just hot, or because my opponent made some small but consequential mistake.

Plus, I've found a kind of methadone for the cravings, so it's not longer like craving a cigarette where I cave and smoking a cigarette makes me feel terrible.

Nurglitch wrote:
Playing Warhammer is a pretty good antidote for wanting to play Warhammer; which is to say that Warhammer looks like it should be so cool to play. There's all this terrain and these models, and you can move them around on the board. Even calling games 'battles' lends an air of excitement and anticipation. The experience is something else. Either games are over in a demoralizing 1-2 turns and all that time setting up seems like it was wasted, or it drags on 6 turns of armies grinding each other down unit by unit. It's never what you hoped it would be, and never as good as you remember it being.

I mean, I keep looking at my armies and thinking maybe I should try a game, but then I remember the sore back from leaning over the table, sore feet from standing, sore throat from talking for hours, and trying to navigate that feeling of disappointment if I win because my dice were just hot, or because my opponent made some small but consequential mistake.

Plus, I've found a kind of methadone for the cravings, so it's not longer like craving a cigarette where I cave and smoking a cigarette makes me feel terrible.

I understand where this is coming from but I still believe in the like-minded-people part of it to navigate out of those woes. Smaller battles with a lot more terrain and more forgiving armies is always a good starting point.

But yes, clubhammer with the wrong crowd and bad boards can ruin the experience fast.

Edit: and fighting against nothing but space marines.

Nurglitch wrote:
Playing Warhammer is a pretty good antidote for wanting to play Warhammer

For some of us, playing Warhammer is just giving more drugs to a drug addict! The more I play, the more games I want to get in! Losing a match gives me a rush in that I spend the next week or two heavily reviewing my list and play mistakes, and I become anxious to "fix" them. Just watched a video recently about physics, and the guy giving the presentation was talking about how much physicists hate doing this one kind of problem, but then he talks with mathematicians that are working on the same problem because they find it FUN. What turns one person off, turns another person on!

For sure. It certainly looks to me like the game is in very good health. It's booming, even. And that's great. I like that people are having a great time with it. It's sort of moved away from what I like in a game, which does make me a little sad, but you can't deny that it's successful and popular.

I have similar feelings about the background, it's moved away from what I like, but the new stuff I don't like is wildly popular.

Insectum7 wrote:But yes, clubhammer with the wrong crowd and bad boards can ruin the experience fast.

Edit: and fighting against nothing but space marines.

Your mileage may vary I guess. The local crowd is fantastic, and the boards are absolutely superb since one organizer makes the most incredible terrain out of Hearst Arts blocks cast in dental plastic. Fantastic range of armies, though it may have changed.

Yarium wrote:For some of us, playing Warhammer is just giving more drugs to a drug addict! The more I play, the more games I want to get in! Losing a match gives me a rush in that I spend the next week or two heavily reviewing my list and play mistakes, and I become anxious to "fix" them. Just watched a video recently about physics, and the guy giving the presentation was talking about how much physicists hate doing this one kind of problem, but then he talks with mathematicians that are working on the same problem because they find it FUN. What turns one person off, turns another person on!

Oh, absolutely, I needed Warhammer in my life for a few years because playing and preparing to play just kept me level. I mentioned 'methadone' and smoking on purpose though, as I've found something that scratches my Warhammer itch without all the Warhammer hassle. I think the problem is when people want something out of Warhammer that's not there and will never be there, while people who enjoy it for what it is will keep enjoying it. In my case I think it's because I developed a game designed to appeal to my own specific tastes, and it's hard to go back. In the meantime it's interesting to read how it's working out for the rest of you.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
If it wasn't for the pricing, their sales would rocket even higher, especially after this virus stuff. It's the price that shuts down many dreams to play before they can even grow. I know, as I've talked to many could have been players and price is invariably the hurdle too high to get over.

Most people have a range of dollars they'll spend on some sort of schedule. Say that person will still spend $100 and pretend it costs GW $10 to make a kit that they sell for $50. They can buy two of those. Then GW drops the price to $33, so they buy 3 of them. GW got zero additional revenue, but paid $30 in costs instead of $20. Some people may not even spend on the third kit - they may just be happy to buy two and save money.

Then consider than an FLGS gets 50% meaning GW gets $16 and pays $10. The majority of their sales are Trade. Such price drops affect trade account margins as well and you may well see the 15% discounts diminish as a consequence.

The end result is GW makes no additional revenue by dropping prices. There's a breakpoint where they do lose money by increasing prices, but they're not there yet, I think.

There are a fair number of avenues to get into the hobby without a massive outlay. Not everyone has to have everything right now. I know I didn't when I started.

 Irbis wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Last tournament I went to was 50-60% space Marines. We had 2 ork players (myself included), a Nid player, a single tau player, 2 eldar players, 1 Imperial Guard player and than 2-3 Chaos type players. Let me tell you how boring it was to face off against those Marine players. I know that I was excited when I got to play non-power armored opponents and the feeling was mutual throughout most of the event. I know a few people who have "dropped" out of the hobby because its so mono-directional in game play these days. They will bounce back every few months or so to check in but otherwise they are AFK.

Funny, because now you know how SM players felt for nearly a decade facing Taudar nonsense. Scatbikes that, riptidewing this, serpentspam, aspects getting 2+ rerollable BS just for existing, invincible drones, 190 pts knights, that garbage was vastly more broken than anything SM can do in 8th or 9th - but funnily enough SM players admit there is a problem (and there is a ton of people who think kicking squats to 2W was idiotic move) while Taudar players were screeching game is tOtEs BaLaNcEd the whole time and pretending everything is okay because they got to win just for picking the army. 'These days' you say?

A decade you say. I mean, you could easily make an argument that Eldar were overpowered from 5th to mid 8th and I would agree with you, But scatbikes were only ever oppressively good in 7th, same with riptide wing, serpeantspam died before that....So really you are complaining about 7th in general, which again, i agree with, but its a bit hyperbolic to say a decade. 7th lasted like 3 years and during that time frame SM's were one of the top 3 armies in the game with their demi-company free razorback spam.
During that same time frame I was playing my orkz still. Reasonably sure we were in a neck and neck race for worst codex of 7th, so trust me when I say I understand the feeling of walking into a game knowing you are at a disadvantage. Also, 8th edition Ironhands nonsense and early gunline girlyman were a hell of a lot more oppressive than triptides or scatbikes, but that is my opinion.

As far as your second point...umm, no. I don't know when you are on Dakka, but we have had a steady line of SM defenders coming to defend everything Space Marine regardless of how utterly broken it is. The guy in my signature line is one of them, he even went as far as to say that double shooting aggressors weren't that good People were defending eradicators as being balanced by pointing out that attack bikes and melta devs were almost as good LMAO. I can keep going bud but we had dozens of pages of SM defenders rushing in to defend whatever the current OP marine unit was.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Most people have a range of dollars they'll spend on some sort of schedule. Say that person will still spend $100 and pretend it costs GW $10 to make a kit that they sell for $50. They can buy two of those. Then GW drops the price to $33, so they buy 3 of them. GW got zero additional revenue, but paid $30 in costs instead of $20. Some people may not even spend on the third kit - they may just be happy to buy two and save money.

One way of looking at it.

Here's another: think about all the people who don't deal with GW at all because of costs. If dropping your prices 50% gets you three or four times as many players who will stick with you for life, how much is that worth?

It isn't about how much each person spends (or at least it doesn't have to be); it can be about how many people spend any money at all.

Look at the new KT box. Many are complaining about the price, since the box only includes 12 models and very weak terrain. It's sales, from what I can tell by reading forums, are likely to disappoint GW. But if it was priced comparably with the Elite starter box, they wouldn't be able to keep it in stock. I'd buy one AND an Elite box, because that would give me enough Crons to field them. And I'd need a Necron dex on top of that.

But now, instead GW gets whatever they charge for heavy Intercessor from me instead. Likely $70 CAD instead of $290.