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.

On the packaging there's a bolt pistol but it's not on the sprues. This doesn't seem to me like it would require a destruction order tbh, they could just redo the packaging and that would save them the valuable machine time. If it's released with new packaging sans bp that would confirm it as the reason (doubt it).

 modelhunter wrote:
Did anyone find out the real reason GW held back the Enforcer's Weapons Sprue release?

It seem to be only speculation at the moment.

Lots of speculation indeed. Until GW announce on one of their official channels the reason why then I guess speculation is all we have.

If GW were going to tell us then I think they would have told us by now. It'll just have to remain a mystery.

 modelhunter wrote:
Did anyone find out the real reason GW held back the Enforcer's Weapons Sprue release?

It seem to be only speculation at the moment.

Does it matter?

It’s an odd reaction, and so fascinating in itself. Of all the things to complain about on the internet, mild interest about an out of the ordinary, but entirely inconsequential event seems low on the list

I have seen the sprue on ebay, so they do exist...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Destroying could be a tax write off thing? I know that applies to books (rip the cover off overstock, it counts as destroyed and can be reported as such in tax stuff).

No idea if that extends to other products though.

It's not to do with tax specifically, but 'destruction' is used to avoid the cost of shipping back defective or unsold goods, which usually isn't worth it. The most widespread use of the practice, as you say (though, again, not in regards to tax per se – as there's no VAT on books), is in the book and magazine trades, where stores almost never actually return unsold copies, but instead rip off the front cover, or even just cut-off the barcode, and send those back (or nowadays even just send a photo of the 'destroyed' copies) and are refunded for the unsold copies by the distributor. GW's instruction to stores to 'destroy' be simply that – leave the boxes in an unsaleable condition, and GW will refund the price paid. You will, of course, find many products up for sale via outlets like eBay with torn-off covers, or cut-out barcodes, or 'destroyed' boxes. Almost certainly a lot of these sprues will leak out the same way in due course.

Destruction on safety grounds would require a whole raft of other measures so I don't think it can possibly be that. Likewise if GW had wanted people to never see these, they'd have given the instruction to return the boxes at GW's cost, so it's unlikely this is anything particularly dramatic. If the product doesn't match the images or description on the packaging, they'll have weighed up the cost and difficulty of dealing with individual complaints (and any potential liabilities under consumer laws about production descriptions), versus the cost of just writing off this initial batch, and they've opted for the latter.

 lasgunpacker wrote:
I have seen the sprue on ebay, so they do exist...

We know that stock was sent out and the retailers who received them were told to dispose of them. So if some have ended up on Ebay that just means that they didn't follow GW's instructions.

Seems a bit foolhardy, GW won't be happy that someone is selling them anyway.

I haven't seen any on Ebay myself but it's not necessarily a retailer who is selling them. The stock could have been sent to recycling in good faith and they were picked up somewhere along the chain.

Can’t “destroyed” stock be claimed on insurance? Would explain a few things. Including how some “written off” vehicles end up back on the road.
But yeah, if they have some sort of cover for stock being unsalable then “destroying” it might even be a condition of the insurance terms so they can’t claim it then turn around and sell it anyway.

To be sure, GW is not in the business of tax or insurance scams. If the product was recalled or destroyed, it was legitimately faulty.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Can’t “destroyed” stock be claimed on insurance? Would explain a few things. Including how some “written off” vehicles end up back on the road.
But yeah, if they have some sort of cover for stock being unsalable then “destroying” it might even be a condition of the insurance terms so they can’t claim it then turn around and sell it anyway.

Fairly sure that wouldn’t be legal as an insurance claim. Factory or warehouse fire? Or container washing off a ship? That’s something they could claim (depending on their insurance), but not deliberately instructing people to destroy the product. It may still count as a tax write-off, same as a “normal” loss making product.

GW made the 31st book now. Pity they didn't take the oppurtunity to fix the same old mistakes they introduced 6 years ago. Funny some effort were made to fix it in faq/errata, but technically it only applies to the old book because it's addressed by Judgement book haha.