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:
It isn't good in LotR either, people just accept it because LotR is a game that's been more or less on life support for a while now; it's got two book releases in the past two years, and very limited new model support. I'm not sure that's a great comparison. If LotR was the future of 40k, GW would be in big trouble.

Terrible example. LotR is in the best place it's been for years. It gets steady releases, the majority of profiles are in just two books and gets less but much more high quality books. The game would suffer horribly if it suddenly got 40K's "spam 20 books in a six month period" release style. It doesn't need the bloat thanks. 40K could severely do with dialing back and actually following its release style.

 Overread wrote:
Even if they aren't the best on the tabletop, I dislike people not having the choice from GW to buy those models. It's a shame and I really hope this is just a short term blip reflecting GW pushing finecast off the shelves; in advance of plastic updates.

I'd like to share that hope, but I can't help but be wary due to plastic Marine characters taking a vacation as well. That sounds a lot like GW is weeding out poor sellers, which I imagine is generally applicable to Finecast models and so we see a lot of them go, but is bound to extend to other models as well. Best case scenario I can imagine is the reverse of what we see with battle boxes, where units get taken out of regular stock but kept in bundle boxes as a compromise to keep them around but not have the poorly selling individual boxes take up space.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it so strange that some people really want to be upset about this. Like, GW is not at all a company with a lack of policies to criticize or actions to be legitimately upset over. To pick this trivial instance is baffling to me. The loss of terrain kits is a bigger deal than the loss of some finecast DEldar no one planned to buy.

No one wanted to buy? They removed the only official models for several units. Those units still exist in a very recent codex.

This is not at all comparable to the terrain and marine characters, as plenty of official options to represent those remain.

But if GW wants to encourage people seeking third party alternatives, then this certainly is an effective way to do it!

Something like the Beastmaster always struck me as an option for consolidation into a single box of plastics: a few masters plus various beasties. Just like the Skaven set with three packmasters plus rat ogres and giant rats, or the box'o'beasties from Warcry.

Another option is to sneak releases out as a supplement to a boxed game. I have a nice unit of plastic Ur Ghuls from Blackstone Fortress that I picked up from eBay. Trouble is, we know that GW hates secondary markets.

GW tend not to sell mixed sets, but a box of "Drukhari support characters" (or whatever) is another option. The Genestealer Cults Broodcoven frame was originally sold in a boxed game with Deathwatch (see the previous paragraph), and made the transition to general release seamlessly.

I'm glad that I waited to see that this is indeed as bad as I suspected.

Perhaps if we WaIt ANd sEe a little longer, they'll rotate out an most of the rest of their Finecast experiment (I'm still waiting to see how that will turn out...)

Funny how people are very quick to jump in and say 'look I was right!' on the flimsiest grounds, yet when their predictions don't pan out they hardly line up to admit they were wrong.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it so strange that some people really want to be upset about this. Like, GW is not at all a company with a lack of policies to criticize or actions to be legitimately upset over. To pick this trivial instance is baffling to me. The loss of terrain kits is a bigger deal than the loss of some finecast DEldar no one planned to buy.

I find it so strange that some people really want to be upset about this. Like, GW is not at all a company with a lack of policies to criticize or actions to be legitimately upset over. To pick this trivial instance is baffling to me. The loss of space marine kits is a bigger deal than the loss of some terrain kits no one planned to buy.

We can be here all day... whats not important to you personally does not give you a free pass on shutting down whats important to others...

You misunderstand; I am saying that neither of these developments are a big deal. Yes, it sucks. But this is reality, and reality is that it does not make business sends to keep barely-moving product permanently available when periodic made-to-order runs are suitable for meeting customer demands. Black knights are making a mountain out of a molehill, despite the irony of doing so.

They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It isn't good in LotR either, people just accept it because LotR is a game that's been more or less on life support for a while now; it's got two book releases in the past two years, and very limited new model support. I'm not sure that's a great comparison. If LotR was the future of 40k, GW would be in big trouble.

Terrible example. LotR is in the best place it's been for years. It gets steady releases, the majority of profiles are in just two books and gets less but much more high quality books. The game would suffer horribly if it suddenly got 40K's "spam 20 books in a six month period" release style. It doesn't need the bloat thanks. 40K could severely do with dialing back and actually following its release style.

I wasn't commenting on the quality. LotR is GW's best game rules-wise, there's no doubt about that. But there's also no doubt that it's very low on the priority when it comes to getting support. If 40k had the release schedule LotR does GW would be going bankrupt. You can't generate 250 million in yearly turnover on one book release and maybe 5ish new kits a year and when half the kits you have aren't even available for purchase because you rotated them out.

They do range rotation in LotR because sales are low and therefore the game isn't a big priority and it isn't worth keeping everything in stock. There is no world in which them doing it is good for the game or the consumer except possibly from the perspective that "it's better than the whole game being discontinued."

Range rotation isn't a good sign when it comes to a game. At best it is a bad thing that is less bad than losing support entirely. Which is why it's weird to see in 40k, a game that is wildly successful in sales volume. It is odd to see that GW isn't committed to keeping the entire range of 40k available.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

They haven't? My impression was range rotation was a very recent thing?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

Mordia
Valhalla
Tallarn
Steel Legion Land
Vostroya
Necromundan Spiders

Don't talk to me about no models no rules.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It isn't good in LotR either, people just accept it because LotR is a game that's been more or less on life support for a while now; it's got two book releases in the past two years, and very limited new model support. I'm not sure that's a great comparison. If LotR was the future of 40k, GW would be in big trouble.

Terrible example. LotR is in the best place it's been for years. It gets steady releases, the majority of profiles are in just two books and gets less but much more high quality books. The game would suffer horribly if it suddenly got 40K's "spam 20 books in a six month period" release style. It doesn't need the bloat thanks. 40K could severely do with dialing back and actually following its release style.

I wasn't commenting on the quality. LotR is GW's best game rules-wise, there's no doubt about that. But there's also no doubt that it's very low on the priority when it comes to getting support. If 40k had the release schedule LotR does GW would be going bankrupt. You can't generate 250 million in yearly turnover on one book release and maybe 5ish new kits a year and when half the kits you have aren't even available for purchase because you rotated them out.

They do range rotation in LotR because sales are low and therefore the game isn't a big priority and it isn't worth keeping everything in stock. There is no world in which them doing it is good for the game or the consumer except possibly from the perspective that "it's better than the whole game being discontinued."

Range rotation isn't a good sign when it comes to a game. At best it is a bad thing that is less bad than losing support entirely. Which is why it's weird to see in 40k, a game that is wildly successful in sales volume. It is odd to see that GW isn't committed to keeping the entire range of 40k available.

Range rotation happens because the entire range is massive. Whether you think it's a low seller or not is really not relevant. You're more than welcome to go discuss it with Jay Clare and the reasons behind it on FB. He answers these questions quite often on the GBHL.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

They haven't? My impression was range rotation was a very recent thing?

For 40k it is.

It's been happening in LOTR for years.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

They haven't? My impression was range rotation was a very recent thing?

It is, because before they just cut stuff and maybe announced it ahead of time.

For old sculpts that have been superceded or are already fundamentally redundant.

But can you actually point to an instance prior to this range rotation where they've removed the only official option for a unit that is currently featured in up to date rules? Serious question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They've been making record profits maintaining the full range, I think they could afford to maintain a cupboard at the back of the warehouse with a half dozen units of the least popular models in stock as a customer service, rather than needing to make business cents.

They haven't been maintaining the full range, or even close to it. 40k just hasn't been where most of the cuts were happening.

They haven't? My impression was range rotation was a very recent thing?

For 40k it is.

It's been happening in LOTR for years.

The comparison of 40K to LOTR is a little disingenuous, I'd be willing to bet there's a percentage of GW customers who for a long time didn't even know they made a LOTR game. Discontinued models for a gamethat was only slightly more alive than pre-relaunch Blood Bowl doesn't compare.

Crimson wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it so strange that some people really want to be upset about this. Like, GW is not at all a company with a lack of policies to criticize or actions to be legitimately upset over. To pick this trivial instance is baffling to me. The loss of terrain kits is a bigger deal than the loss of some finecast DEldar no one planned to buy.

No one wanted to buy? They removed the only official models for several units. Those units still exist in a very recent codex.

This is not at all comparable to the terrain and marine characters, as plenty of official options to represent those remain.

But if GW wants to encourage people seeking third party alternatives, then this certainly is an effective way to do it!

Both things can be true at the same time, an unit might be the only official model and it might sell so little that GW doesn't see much value in keeping it permanently in its range (for now, at least). By kicking it into this limbo state instead of actually killing it off they don't have to rush a new codex out where it's suddenly gone. They can also at any time release a new plastic model that might sell better due to its novelty factor (± FOMO, if it's limited), and whenever in the future they release a new codex they can think about what to do with that unit. They can keep it and make a new model for it, or they can streamline and splice it into another unit so old models are not wasted but it doesn't stay on as weight (an unit that exists but is not bought too often).

GW is an odd toy company. They sell most of a model in the first few months and then need to keep the stuff in rotation forever because it's in the rules and thus needed. Lego can drop old products at any time as long as the new stuff is just compatible with the same studs. And any normal toy company can create new and drop old lines at any time. I 100% understand that GW probably wants to regain some flexibility without alienating its user base too much. Any inventory management that doesn't kill off products creates a pile up of new kits over the years that become stale. They probably create an incredible long tail of products that have little sales and every new release becomes part of it in one/two years.

I also remember being able to keep up with GW's releases about two decades ago and having an overview of it. These days it feels like stuff's coming out at a somewhat accelerated pace. Maybe somebody has the numbers for that comparison? They might need to drop older products more harshly to keep things flowing. They are not selling mp3s via an online store and shelf/warehouse space is limited. Technically not killing off a product but dropping it until they decide on a long term solution (keep it, remake it, cut it) seems like a viable choice for a company that has to try to please a few different groups. It has its downsides (unit with rules but no models which creates opportunities for third party manufacturers) but seems better than completely killing it off (models and rules) and ending with users who now have obsolete models.

I haven't read all 3 pages in detail since the DE range rotation. I have skimmed them, and I'm with a lot of you on this one.

I do want, and have always wanted the Court of the Archon and Beast set for DE. I haven't purchased them because I'm always hoping for plastic. I am glad GW is announcing this- just like I was glad they announced the last rotation- rather than waking up one morning to just find it gone (like the BSF Ambull or the GSC Techtonic Frag Drill).

Let's talk about the models:

Lhamaean- not included in the announcement, but I wanted to point out that this exclusion from the rotate list MIGHT be an error, so if you want one, get it just in case. Of all the DE resin models, this one might be my favourite. New rules make Lhamaeans really cool story pieces- having poison distillery territories in Crusade provides a real story back-bone for Lhamaeans, and so many of the customization options available in the army lean into poison that you can create a real theme. I wish the models were posable, or that finecast was easier to convert- I'd like a matron and two apprentices. They would play nice with their Archon patron of course... But they would have their own agenda, and use him to acquire as many poison distilleries as possible.

Medusae- don't love these as much as Lhamaeans, but still like them enough that I want one or two.

Slyth- my favourite of the Court models in terms of rules, least favourite in terms of models. If anyone knows good third party Slyth substitutes, please let me know. If I can find good 3rd parties, I won't bother with these... but I do need something to represent them on the table because I want at least 2 in my army.

The beast models are my jam.

I really like the beastmaster, and the clawed fiends, but the Khymerae are my faves. It looks like there are two bodies and two sets of upper limbs, so there should be 4 combinations. If there were more, I'd buy ten of these damn things, but I will be content with four. I only need one fiend- again, I'd buy two if they were posable, but they aren't.

Side note: I have 4 classic metal warp beasts which I am using as kymerae pups. I will be playing with the warp beasts until they hit battle hardened, then I will replace them with full grown kymerae.

So I've got a lot of purchases ahead of me. And sure, I probably could convert, but I don't know if I would like the results as much as I like some of these models. I'm okay with GW forcing me to pull the trigger- again, I'm grateful they gave me enough advance notice that I can.

So I won't say the sky is falling- I try to be more nuanced than that as often as I can. I do think that this is a bad thing- I didn't mind the marine rotation as much because of the size of their range, however, at the time I did say that the next round of rotations would be less pleasnat, and I also predicted these specific DE models would be on the chopping block. And I do have some issues with this move- the DE range IS small enough as it is, and DE have lost a lot of rules for units since their peak. There would have been ways for the company to mitigate the trepidation I feel- as many have pointed out, this MIGHT lead to plastic replacements, and I particularly liked the suggestion that those replacements might take the form of a Kill Team. Hinting that this might occur could have gone a long way to making me feel better about it.

Lhamaean- not included in the announcement

Its the first model in the announcement. Directly above the medusa and left of the ur-ghul.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Range rotation happens because the entire range is massive. Whether you think it's a low seller or not is really not relevant. You're more than welcome to go discuss it with Jay Clare and the reasons behind it on FB. He answers these questions quite often on the GBHL.

Massive relative to the sales figures. I guarantee you they wouldn't rotate the range the way they do if LotR had sales like 40k (or even AOS) does. GW doesn't give up profit for no reason. The reason it does range rotation is because the lost sales are not greater than the logistical savings. And that's only true when sales are low relative to the range size.

Voss wrote:

Lhamaean- not included in the announcement

Its the first model in the announcement. Directly above the medusa and left of the ur-ghul.

Yet it does not have the LCTB logo on its product page:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Dark-Eldar-Lhamaean

Obviously an omission.

One day GW will figure out the mysteries of the warp...er I mean online shopping. Come on guys, this is really difficult stuff. It's not like I was able to build a more functional website for $1,000 and a few days of work using bigcommerce. Oh, wait a minute... It blows my mind that their backend can't distinguish between "temporarily out of stock" and "you will never see this again so prepare to spend triple MSRP on ebay for it".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The only puzzling thing I find is this whole 'rotation' idea since I can't really see any of these coming back.

It's probably just spin.

I see what you did there.

 Azreal13 wrote:
For old sculpts that have been superceded or are already fundamentally redundant.

But can you actually point to an instance prior to this range rotation where they've removed the only official option for a unit that is currently featured in up to date rules? Serious question.

And it is a fair question. A good example right now would be the Nighthaunt Guardian of Souls, which was exclusive to the 2nd edition starter that has been OOP for some time. Worse still it is a core part of the army's roster and critical to their performance.

It is something that has happened a lot in AoS. The units are cut entirely or replaced eventually, but there have been some pretty large gaps between models going OOP and that being reflected in the game rules.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


The only puzzling thing I find is this whole 'rotation' idea since I can't really see any of these coming back.

Seeing gw is on 100% track record on also bringing stuff back when they say range rotation rather than removed i can.

If gw never said stulf is removed sure but since they historically have said stuff gets removed and historically stuff they said is rotated also comes back less reason to think they are deliberately lying.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


The only puzzling thing I find is this whole 'rotation' idea since I can't really see any of these coming back.

Seeing gw is on 100% track record on also bringing stuff back when they say range rotation rather than removed i can.

If gw never said stulf is removed sure but since they historically have said stuff gets removed and historically stuff they said is rotated also comes back less reason to think they are deliberately lying.

Historically, GW has said just about anything and everything.

They do bring oop stuff back from time and time, with updated (more expensive) price ofc Dark Vengeance, Island of Blood, Space Hulk, that big observatory, destroyed chaos dreadhold wall

 Albertorius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


The only puzzling thing I find is this whole 'rotation' idea since I can't really see any of these coming back.

Seeing gw is on 100% track record on also bringing stuff back when they say range rotation rather than removed i can.

If gw never said stulf is removed sure but since they historically have said stuff gets removed and historically stuff they said is rotated also comes back less reason to think they are deliberately lying.

Historically, GW has said just about anything and everything.

But rarely flat out lie.

Again. They say when stuff are going out. And they have 100% track record on range rotation meaning just that. Range rotation. ie coming back as well as away.

Claiming NOW after 100% track record they actually mean gone for good...well that's just inventing new meanings out of your own head. There's word starting with l that applies to that.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


The only puzzling thing I find is this whole 'rotation' idea since I can't really see any of these coming back.

Seeing gw is on 100% track record on also bringing stuff back when they say range rotation rather than removed i can.

If gw never said stulf is removed sure but since they historically have said stuff gets removed and historically stuff they said is rotated also comes back less reason to think they are deliberately lying.

Historically, GW has said just about anything and everything.

But rarely flat out lie.

Again. They say when stuff are going out. And they have 100% track record on range rotation meaning just that. Range rotation. ie coming back as well as away.

Claiming NOW after 100% track record they actually mean gone for good...well that's just inventing new meanings out of your own head. There's word starting with l that applies to that.

Didn't they also say (at least in the marines' case) that they might return, or they might not, and if they did return, it might be as a new sculpt?

The Warcom article said the models would come back at a later date and the FB page said "it was possible" that some of those rotated kits might get updates at some point. Nowhere was it said these kits were gone for good.

Yea but the "comeback" price probably won't be the same, so get them now or really just forget about it.