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.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To the people who are saying they should just absorb the increased costs via the profits.

How would you like it if your employer had to pay increased tax for you as an employee, so they're using your pay rise to cover it, so rather than keeping up with the cost of living you're comparatively worse off?

Yes they're putting prices up out of a form of need/greed, yes they could absorb them, but they're obligated not to and there's no reason the owners of the company (stakeholders) should de facto take the hit, simply because the customers don't like paying more.

Why do people continue to repeat this nonsense? This simply is not true. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a company to always put the pursuit of short-term profits above all other considerations. It does not exist. It was made up out of whole cloth by some right-wing economists to justify a right-wing economic agenda, and it took decades for it to actually catch on because it was such a radical departure from prior ideas. It has never become the law; it remains in the domain of right-wing pontification, even if it's managed to enter the common consciousness. Even the people they credit like Hayek didn't actually believe the radical version of the theory that's become "common sense" to legions of duped people on the internet.

Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said. Again, they're not obligated to absorb additional overheads, just the same way they're not obliged to maximise profits. Legally or otherwise.

They've made a choice to pass on the increased operating costs to protect the interests of the stakeholders, simple as that.

Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

Wasn't there a thread in News & Rumors that AoS exceeded their expectations? 2021 was relatively huge in AoS releases compared to 40k so I imagine they are trying to zig-zag the release schedule. Last year we had new/updated Soulblight as well as brand new Hedonites, Stormcasts, and new Orruks which apparently sold really well. The big release in that timeframe for 40k was Beastsnaggas and SoB with a smaller release with Black Templars. I would not be surprised if they would want to shake their release schedule from year to year, and that is before counting all the release delays due to BREXIT and COVID.

I want to say Dominion is the most overstocked product in Warhammer history? I see some stores still have over 50 copies. That is worse than Dreadfleet from memory. And I am suspicious of Hedonites and Soulblight having sold so well. Both are in the new 2021 Battleforce boxes (still available at allot of places).

Seems to me like their having problems moving large discount boxes. a knockdown effect of prices getting out of control IMHO. Maybe in a few years we will see Battleforces featuring 10 basic troop models on 2 infantry sprues and that will be "considered" a great deal.

It is weird that their 2 army boxes have like 17 models and cost well over $100. I think one downside to their incredibly high prices is that you need to hit the bullseye when you make a new model or release a new set. GW fans have plenty of money for them, but they can't look at a Dominion box set and think, "Meh, it's fine." The visceral desire has to land strongly, or else the other side of the scale (the gigantic cost) will outweigh it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

It's standard to work on a 5 year cycle at the CEO/CFO level. It's the expectation from the shareholder market. Quick returns and benefits as it were. If you don't you tend to find that you are looking for another job. Hence many also work to a short term profit basis without real consideration of the consequences (one would argue that applies at the wider national level as well).

Whether this is profit orientated I'm not so sure or whether they are fighting a battle to maintain. The last profit report showed a substantial decrease in profits from the core business. It was only really selling their IP that kept it looking good - IIRC I commented on this previously. However GW is mainly based in the UK and has some massive head winds that have probably already put us into recession after you screen out growth from inflation. In the UK specifically you have:-

Shortage of staff
An internal freight system that is broken with huge delays at ports for haulage vehicles
A shipping freight system that has seen massive increases in costs
Shortage of supplies (above just the more well known chips compounded by the above)
Significant increases in costs to move goods into and out of the EU (noting a lot of goods go through Rotterdam port)
Huge energy price increases (noting that householders are protected by a price cap but businesses are not so businesses are currently being used to offset the householder cost - so they see it indirectly)
There's a plastic packaging tax using less than 30% recycled material (e.g. sprues)

So inflation is running at 7.7% (RPIx) and essentials are much higher (fuel, food etc) and that's before you take into account shrinking in product sizes.

Hence they may need to increase prices just to stand still.

If we look at what is going up

Plastics - 5% (some energy costs, tax, staffing pay)
Metals/Resins - 20% (the above plus even more energy costs)
Books - 10% from China probably (shipping and import costs)

They've also got the capital investment to pay off - there is a risk here now. Price increases (not only GWs but the horrendous food/fuel bills) will reduce luxury expenditure - hence each item is likely to be sold per unit less. The way to manage this is to decrease content per box and/or put prices up

Things that haven't gone up are starter sets (not too expensive that drives away new starters, and products with high competition and are already expensive in comparison).

It's going to be a tough few years in the UK at least.

Some of this is COVID based, but a lot is from self-inflicted wounds...(which was predicted )

Dudeface wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To the people who are saying they should just absorb the increased costs via the profits.

How would you like it if your employer had to pay increased tax for you as an employee, so they're using your pay rise to cover it, so rather than keeping up with the cost of living you're comparatively worse off?

Yes they're putting prices up out of a form of need/greed, yes they could absorb them, but they're obligated not to and there's no reason the owners of the company (stakeholders) should de facto take the hit, simply because the customers don't like paying more.

Why do people continue to repeat this nonsense? This simply is not true. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a company to always put the pursuit of short-term profits above all other considerations. It does not exist. It was made up out of whole cloth by some right-wing economists to justify a right-wing economic agenda, and it took decades for it to actually catch on because it was such a radical departure from prior ideas. It has never become the law; it remains in the domain of right-wing pontification, even if it's managed to enter the common consciousness. Even the people they credit like Hayek didn't actually believe the radical version of the theory that's become "common sense" to legions of duped people on the internet.

Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said.

I even highlighted the bit it directly contradicts. You didn't say "they're not obligated to" lower their margins, you said "they're obligated not to" lower their margins. That is flat-out wrong, and it's an extremely common and extremely pernicious talking point, hence why I refute it every time I see it.

If you didn't mean what you wrote that's fine, but it is what you wrote.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

That's also the decision Dakka made about Kirby's decisions during his era - constant price hikes (selling less for more per unit), yet no one said "we don't have anywhere near the info GW does."

Kirby was soundly (and deservedly) trashed for his short sighted and short term decision making. Just because GW is "nuGW" now, and has a social media presence, doesn't give them a pass for raising prices amid historical profits.

But what do I know, I stopped buying from them for exactly these reasons - the product wasn't worth the asking price anymore (and I have enough disposable income, as well as a son (right in GWs target demographic) who loves the lore, but also shakes his head at the prices).

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To the people who are saying they should just absorb the increased costs via the profits.

How would you like it if your employer had to pay increased tax for you as an employee, so they're using your pay rise to cover it, so rather than keeping up with the cost of living you're comparatively worse off?

Yes they're putting prices up out of a form of need/greed, yes they could absorb them, but they're obligated not to and there's no reason the owners of the company (stakeholders) should de facto take the hit, simply because the customers don't like paying more.

Why do people continue to repeat this nonsense? This simply is not true. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a company to always put the pursuit of short-term profits above all other considerations. It does not exist. It was made up out of whole cloth by some right-wing economists to justify a right-wing economic agenda, and it took decades for it to actually catch on because it was such a radical departure from prior ideas. It has never become the law; it remains in the domain of right-wing pontification, even if it's managed to enter the common consciousness. Even the people they credit like Hayek didn't actually believe the radical version of the theory that's become "common sense" to legions of duped people on the internet.

Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said.

I even highlighted the bit it directly contradicts. You didn't say "they're not obligated to" lower their margins, you said "they're obligated not to" lower their margins. That is flat-out wrong, and it's an extremely common and extremely pernicious talking point, hence why I refute it every time I see it.

If you didn't mean what you wrote that's fine, but it is what you wrote.

Also, it's not like the only options for a company reporting record profits year after year are 'raise prices' and 'under-compensate employees'. If a company chose to gut employee compensation rather than slightly reduce shareholder dividends, that would speak volumes about it as an organization.

GW doesn't have to eat cost increases, but neither do they they to raise prices either; it's a choice that isn't immune to criticism simply because GW is a profit-oriented company. Nobody here really thinks the correct choice is automatically the one that results in maximal short-term profit (unless there are people legitimately upset that GW doesn't abuse tax loopholes, doesn't outsource all their production to China, and pays bonuses to staff from time to time), it's just an excuse.

 Cruentus wrote:
That's also the decision Dakka made about Kirby's decisions during his era - constant price hikes (selling less for more per unit), yet no one said "we don't have anywhere near the info GW does."

Kirby was soundly (and deservedly) trashed for his short sighted and short term decision making. Just because GW is "nuGW" now, and has a social media presence, doesn't give them a pass for raising prices amid historical profits.

But what do I know, I stopped buying from them for exactly these reasons - the product wasn't worth the asking price anymore (and I have enough disposable income, as well as a son (right in GWs target demographic) who loves the lore, but also shakes his head at the prices).

I'm not sure I believe that. there were always people who more were willing to defend GW to all comers, and even a contingent that basically said "everybody predicted that the last price hike would kill GW, and we're still here!"

I mean, price increases suck. Nobody wants to pay more for less. But GW has spent virtually the entire two decades I've spent in the hobby aggressively field testing how inelastic demand for it's products really are. I remember the big jump for regiment/squad boxes, going from $20 to $25 (Often for 20 WFB figs!), so arguing about 10 ork boys going form $50 to $55 is just something I'm tired of.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

That's also the decision Dakka made about Kirby's decisions during his era - constant price hikes (selling less for more per unit), yet no one said "we don't have anywhere near the info GW does."

Kirby was soundly (and deservedly) trashed for his short sighted and short term decision making. Just because GW is "nuGW" now, and has a social media presence, doesn't give them a pass for raising prices amid historical profits.

But what do I know, I stopped buying from them for exactly these reasons - the product wasn't worth the asking price anymore (and I have enough disposable income, as well as a son (right in GWs target demographic) who loves the lore, but also shakes his head at the prices).

My point here is that Yukoshiro has gone with a claim solely to supportive a given narrative.

My counter is that none of us, at all, have anything like enough information on projections and that compared to GW. And so I question the assertion it’s short term planning.

It may be. But we don’t know that. My posts in this thread are largely about challenging misinformation and misrepresentation. Such as those pointing out the rises are higher than inflation, who don’t seem aware how inflation is calculated, and that it by no means acts as the upper limit for price increases.

Here’s some interesting and relevant BBC News articles.

US Inflation is now 7.5% https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60336676

Unilever warns of further price increases across their ranges, Next (a clothes shop) upping prices by 6%, Tesco warning food costs could jump by another 5% over Spring. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60324332

Those two articles alone rather cast doubt on the claim “Gw Are Just Being Greedy”, do they not?

Basically, when we look at the wider picture, and are not just tying to drive a narrative? We get a far clearer perspective.

The true untergang was going from 20€ for 20 figs to 15€ for 10 of the very same figs, or 25€ for 10 new sculpts.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

That's also the decision Dakka made about Kirby's decisions during his era - constant price hikes (selling less for more per unit), yet no one said "we don't have anywhere near the info GW does."

Kirby was soundly (and deservedly) trashed for his short sighted and short term decision making. Just because GW is "nuGW" now, and has a social media presence, doesn't give them a pass for raising prices amid historical profits.

But what do I know, I stopped buying from them for exactly these reasons - the product wasn't worth the asking price anymore (and I have enough disposable income, as well as a son (right in GWs target demographic) who loves the lore, but also shakes his head at the prices).

My point here is that Yukoshiro has gone with a claim solely to supportive a given narrative.

My counter is that none of us, at all, have anything like enough information on projections and that compared to GW. And so I question the assertion it’s short term planning.

It may be. But we don’t know that. My posts in this thread are largely about challenging misinformation and misrepresentation. Such as those pointing out the rises are higher than inflation, who don’t seem aware how inflation is calculated, and that it by no means acts as the upper limit for price increases.

Here’s some interesting and relevant BBC News articles.

US Inflation is now 7.5% https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60336676

Unilever warns of further price increases across their ranges, Next (a clothes shop) upping prices by 6%, Tesco warning food costs could jump by another 5% over Spring. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60324332

Those two articles alone rather cast doubt on the claim “Gw Are Just Being Greedy”, do they not?

Basically, when we look at the wider picture, and are not just tying to drive a narrative? We get a far clearer perspective.

I mean, sure. We can look at a different country's inflation rate and some unrelated industries' costs, and claim that the defense of the price rise is a 'clearer perspective' rather than 'driving a narrative,' but...
mostly it just looks like you have a different narrative than yukoshiro, and don't like disagreement with your defense of GW.

Admitting up front that you don't have information, and none of us can know doesn't make your stance better, just hypocritical.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

I didn't make any claim, you made one and pretended I made it. Which is a poor way to argue.

All I was doing was refuting the perniciously wrong statement made by another poster (whether or not he meant to) that GW was "obligated" not to absorb cost increases. There is no such obligation, legal or otherwise, for management to prioritize margins, whether short-term or long-term. Arguing over whether raising prices in alleged response to the immediate economic environment is a short-term decision or not is a red herring and I have no interest in getting into that argument.

Management's obligation is to act in the best interests of the company. If the shareholders disagree with management as to what that is, they can always replace the management team - but that hardly ever happens, for good reason. It certainly doesn't happen to companies with 40% margins. No investors are going to replace the management because margins decrease modestly during a global pandemic, when those margins are still extraordinarily large by any normal standard. Going from 40% margins to 30% margins doesn't result in a shareholder coup. Shareholders aren't that fickle or stupid.

This is a choice GW made, and it bears the responsibility for that choice. All I was objecting to was the efforts by many in this thread to try to absolve GW of responsibility for its own decisions by suggesting in various ways that somehow their hands were tied and they had no choice. That transparently is not the case here.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yukoshiro has also just sort of decided this is a decision made looking only to the short term.

I have to question the basis of that assertion. None of us in this thread have anywhere near the info GW does.

I didn't make any claim, you made one and pretended I made it. Which is a poor way to argue.

All I was doing was refuting the perniciously wrong statement made by another poster (whether or not he meant to) that GW was "obligated" not to absorb cost increases. There is no such obligation, legal or otherwise, for management to prioritize margins, whether short-term or long-term. Arguing over whether raising prices in alleged response to the immediate economic environment is a short-term decision or not is a red herring and I have no interest in getting into that argument.

Management's obligation is to act in the best interests of the company. If the shareholders disagree with management as to what that is, they can always replace the management team - but that hardly ever happens, for good reason. It certainly doesn't happen to companies with 40% margins. No investors are going to replace the management because margins decrease modestly during a global pandemic, when those margins are still extraordinarily large by any normal standard. Going from 40% margins to 30% margins doesn't result in a shareholder coup. Shareholders aren't that fickle or stupid.

This is a choice GW made, and it bears the responsibility for that choice. All I was objecting to was the efforts by many in this thread to try to absolve GW of responsibility for its own decisions by suggesting in various ways that somehow their hands were tied and they had no choice. That transparently is not the case here.

Yup, and to the other reference to my post above, it was fat handed part-rewritten sentences, not obligated is indeed the correct way round for those 2 words. So primarily agree, although simultaneously I don't think they need "absolving" of anything still, as that suggests a foul play/move of some variety. Simply they made a choice and it is what it is, doesn't make them any more or less evil.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said.

I even highlighted the bit it directly contradicts. You didn't say "they're not obligated to" lower their margins, you said "they're obligated not to" lower their margins. That is flat-out wrong, and it's an extremely common and extremely pernicious talking point, hence why I refute it every time I see it.

If you didn't mean what you wrote that's fine, but it is what you wrote.

While it's true that there's no legal requirement for a CEO & directors to maintain or improve profit margins, there is an implicit requirement due to the fact that shareholders control appointment of board members.

If a majority of UK companies and all of GW's suppliers are raising their prices by 5% or more (~50% in the case of energy costs), most shareholders would be very interested in asking the board why GW are not also doing the same. A CEO can justify a dip a profits to them by explaining that it's due to investment or economic conditions or covid, etc. They faaaaar less likely to be able to justify it by saying "we can't increase prices in line with inflation because customers will complain on the Internet". Lowered profitability will result in reduced share prices and unhappy shareholders. Sustained lowered profitability will result in a new board and/or CEO.

What's more, over 40% of GW's stock is known to be owned by investment funds or trusts like JP Morgan or Baillie Gifford. These are companies that will drop what they consider to be a bad or underperforming investment with zero hesitation. They don't give a dusty fluff about anyone's opinion on plastic model prices, they care about two things and only two things:

Share price of their investments increasing

Dividends from their investments

Unfortunately the fundamental rule of capitalism is number must go up.

Eagerly looking forward to someone calling me a shill for accurately describing how the system works.

To the extent that you're describing abstract economic concepts, that's fine. But they have little application to the situation here. GW's shareholders weren't about to revolt if management decided that it's a better idea to prioritize growth than increase prices, even if it means margins decrease from 44% to 3x% or whatever it happens to be. It just isn't going to happen.

GW's margins are world-beating, and that is true whether or not they went forward with this price increase. If GW's CEO had instead said "we know costs are up a bit in the last year, but we raised prices twice in the last two years precisely to allow us to weather this sort of disruption and keep growing the hobby and we want to continue doing that" that's a perfectly valid answer and is as likely to increase the share price as decrease it when backed up by financials that show that it's true that GW is under no real pressure.

But more to the point, GW increases prices every year. It's a no-brainer for them from a PR perspective to say that this year it's because of increased costs. They were going to increase those prices no matter what; you may as well take advantage of a crisis to cover what you were going to do anyway. This decision was no more or less compelled than any of those prior decisions. They're all choices GW has made to attempt to prioritize revenues from each customer at the possible expense of shrinking the total customer pool. That's a decision they can be fairly assessed and reacted to without having to pretend they're forced into this against their will by evil shareholders or by world economic conditions or whatever other excuse someone comes up with.

That's my only real point here. GW isn't a victim without agency. They made a choice, and it's perfectly reasonable to judge them on it, however one chooses to do so.

What is GW's actual % of a rise? It isn't 20%, as that is just for a few kits. Some items are not going up in price at all. But, some companies say:
"Unilever ... increases across their ranges,
Next upping prices by 6%,
Tesco warning food costs could jump by another 5%".
GW might be 5% across the whole range, too. Probably more like 10%, but whatever.

GW uses a lot of electricity to make their kits, as we know from the reports of the substation upgrades, etc, earlier in the past year. Energy is currently one of the highest rises in prices in the UK at the moment. Energy is not just used to make plastic kits, but GW is a bigger user than most companies.
So, GW always raises prices. This time, so is everyone else. Is GW raising theirs by more than most, or just around average for now?

Amazed to see that this thread continued after the TV licence side quest.

Some well thought out and considered responses here, alternatively a lot of you have far too much time on your hands and should go out for a drink or attempt to get laid.

Maybe it's time for people to start playing different games (maybe easily even better games).

 Skinnereal wrote:
What is GW's actual % of a rise? It isn't 20%, as that is just for a few kits.

On average, not sure. But they've stated 5% for plastics, 10% for resin, and 20% for metal kits.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:
Amazed to see that this thread continued after the TV licence side quest.

Some well thought out and considered responses here, alternatively a lot of you have far too much time on your hands and should go out for a drink or attempt to get laid.

Says another one putting in their 2 pence instead of getting a drink or getting laid.

Only reason I'm here is to see how far we've gotten with the argument. Half my friends are livid, half are understanding. I think today's Tabletop Inquirer actually hit the nail on the head, the idea that after 2 years of inflation of 7%, Games Workshop sticks it to hobbyists with a 5% increase.

I am a little insulted by the increase to books, especially since many of the books GW has been putting out aren't worth their prices even if you dropped them by 20%, but I don't buy those campaign books or tournament brochures anyway.

But, none of us actually know what's going on behind the scenes or in the minds of GW's C-suite. We can speculate and analyze their quarterly reports and the world situation, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether our individual wallets will bear the new expense.

One thing I've noticed about so many nerd hobbies and nerd companies is that they have to bend over backwards to appease their niche audience, while companies that do far worse things or have far greedier price hikes are ignored because they have a much larger customer base or demographic. Those companies A. don't give their customers warning that price hikes are coming a month in advance, and B. didn't keep most of their employees employed and paid their full salary through the entire pandemic.

My gas and leccy bill is about to go up by like £600/year, i don't give a fig about luxury product price increases.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:
Amazed to see that this thread continued after the TV licence side quest.

Some well thought out and considered responses here, alternatively a lot of you have far too much time on your hands and should go out for a drink or attempt to get laid.

Those hobbies are even more expensive!

Indeed GW has no obligation to set their prices, myself and the others likewise do not have any obligation to buy from them! Nor are we charities to GW! Indeed my RT rulebook (not to mention Grimdark Future) says I can use any modes I want (edit: and there are plenty of legal non-infringement STL/models available) And capitalism and supply and demand, my demand went away when tacticals hit $50.

I think now a lot of the 8th edition 'newcomers', who are already taken a bit aback by the 9th edition $$$ codex/book shuffle, are going to see the models with their new prices and are going to think twice. I bought a 3d printer some time ago. Now for my next hobby purchase, it is going to be begging my wife not for more warhammer but for a new 6k or 8k printer.

They better think twice about that new staff hire of 150 people mentioned a while back, I think demand will continue to go down Australia style. Soon the only profit will be through licensing via video games such as Total War. But this is the same organization whose leaders called video games 'a fad' back in the day. and i think the individual is gone but the same group from the 90s/early 2000s still runs the show.

another edit: like i like GW, I like everything about warhammer, but the word 'relationship' is used in the phrase 'business relationship' for a reason.

drbored wrote:

But, none of us actually know what's going on behind the scenes or in the minds of GW's C-suite.

speaking as someone who has worked with sales and even liked it and hope to return one day, what is going is a lot of thinking about making money! which is fine, that is what business is about! but one needs to be smart about it long term, something rarely seen in the corporate world, as global warming attests to!

I'm sorry for posting a spikey bits link but I've not seen this anywhere else yet.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/02/the-list-of-over-3000-new-gw-price-increases-for-warhammer.html

Might as well have some prices to discuss rather than our financial morality debates.

Interesting list that on Spikey Bits.

First initial glance I'm seeing some odd pricings.
So some of the Custodes boxes won't change at all.
Then Blood Bowl Khorne team goes up 25%.
Maybe the Blood Bowl 20% was just a guideline?

Actually the more I look the more interesting things I find. Definitely seems like it's not standardized, even within the GW %'s given.

I feel sorry for USA cousins who just got into games like Blood Bowl for it's fun and cheap factor.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
What is GW's actual % of a rise? It isn't 20%, as that is just for a few kits.

On average, not sure. But they've stated 5% for plastics, 10% for resin, and 20% for metal kits.

Or Blood Bowl.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:
Amazed to see that this thread continued after the TV licence side quest.

Some well thought out and considered responses here, alternatively a lot of you have far too much time on your hands and should go out for a drink or attempt to get laid.

If I knew anything about economics I'd be Four for Four.

Instead I'm on Four for Five actually because the attempt was successful.

At least this means they wont stop selling Adeptus Titanicus I guess. Even though half of the items are now 'sold out online' (and have been a while) they are still getting a price rise.

That's a bizarre list. Looks less like a 20% increase on resin across the board and more like a decision to increase prices on Middle Earth stuff to match the premium price point of Warhammer minis.

Also, LOL @ Fyreslayers battle tome getting a price increase right before the new one comes out.