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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Some notes on the above.

1. Warhammer was not a failing product. Games Workshop was a failing company; on a life support of IP licensing free money. This was due to cretins at the top, never forget this. If handled competently WHFB will be profitable, not a profitable as 40K, but good enough.

Games Workshop was never a "failing" company and never hit life support. Even at its worst point it was still posting tens of millions of GBP of profit and free cash annually. I'll have to dive through my post history to find it, but I once did an indirect analysis of the financial impact on GWs bottom line between pre WHFB and post WHFB to try to gauge the profitability of the game - surprise, there was no significant or noticeable impact.

Pre WHFB? So before the company started? Absolute gibberish. I'd also love to see when in WHFB's tenure you cherry picked your data from, as the profits from early to mid 2000's is likely WORLDS different than a year before its cancellation.

I can only guess he might mean AoS instead of Warhammer Fantasy? Because yeah if you go back to before fantasy as a formal game you're going way back to the Rogue Trader days when it was a garage company and all doing all kinds of odd printing jobs and projects and such.

Pre-WHFB is the ime were GW was the European distributior for D&D and WD a generic Tabletop Magazine

I doubt they made the same money before and after Warhammer

That it did not run well in the USA is known, but the US was not GWs main market for a long time anyway

PS: and GW was failing once as by the time Kirby took over he wanted to make money fast and invested heavily into Specialist Games to grow
All of them seeing translations but did not sell equal in all countries, resulting in leftovers from one country that could not be sold in others were stock run out because all the paper/card stuff was in the wrong language

A lot of things we have with GW today are a direct result of this

Yeah GW was an entirely different beast back then. Heck I doubt even they have the records for their finances from back then - I mean they might but it wouldn't shock me if they didn't considering all the changes, expansions and the fact that you only need to keep finance data for X number of years (6-10 years depending on the nature of it - from my 5 mins of googling).


And yeah many forget that Kirby turned GW's finances around. When he first came on board he did a lot of great things with the financial side. Perhaps some were not always popular with gamers and things like the 1 staffer in highstreet stores was a huge shift from when they used to have 3 or 4 even in the smaller ones; but they kept the company functional and heck even now they are one of the few highstreet names that aren't constantly predicting the downfall of their entire company (or selling food/mobile phone contracts)

chaos0xomega wrote:It occurred to me last night that we can estimate how relevant WHFB was to GW's finances in its final couple years of life. Observe:



So it doesn't mark when WHFB died, but it was August 2014. Because the chart is based on annual and half-year reports, theres not a good place to actually measure from that would completely or accurately capture the lost sales, but if we consider the WHFB "maximum" to be before that point at Jan 1 2014 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of 40k 7th), at which point The End Times hype cycle was in full swing, and consider the WHFB "minimum" to be Jan 1 2016 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of AoS GHB), we can very generously get a gauge of how much sales of WHFB minis and books contributed to GWs top line. So, marking the maximum with a red line, the minimum with a purple line, and marking the area we are focused on with the orange circle we get this:



Roughly speaking, it looks like WHFB was between 5-10 million GBP/year of revenue, lets call it 7.5 million, or about 5-6% of GWs total annual revenue at the time.

One key assumption made here is that WHFB was not already in a downward sales trend on Jan 1 2014 (and indeed the fact that the End Times books had started being released sometime prior to this, which was supposedly driving sales* would imply that WHFB sales would have been on an upswing at this time). Another key assumption here, which is intended to be as generous to WHFB as posslbe, is that the downward trend that continued from Jan 1 2014 onwards was 100% entirely due to the loss of WHFB and had nothing to do with 40k or the lackluster response to 7th ed 40k whatsoever. Likewise, final key assumption here is that the lowest point measured after WHFB was axed on Jan 1 2016 is due entirely to the loss of sales from WHFB and that Age of Sigmar was barely selling anything at all at this point. In essence, the idea here is that WHFB was undergoing a sales renaissance up until Jan 1 2014, and then it was killed and everyone stopped buying that product range until AoS GHB was released, and every lost dollar in that timeframe is 100% due to WHFB.

Again, the assumptions made are designed to be as generous to WHFB as humanly possible and in reality would probably indicate WHFB generated significantly more top-line revenue than it actually did. Even if we dial this up to 11 and assume the WHFB "maximum" was at Jan 1 2013 (i.e. GWs top line revenue maximum prior to the post AoS GHB peak) indicated with the yellow line/focus area in grey circle, you still only get about 20 million GBP max (in reality closer to 16-18, but Im being generous) or around ~16% of Revenue total - but for that to be true would require 40k to not have been on a sales and popularity downtrend at the time, which it was, so its hard to justify attributing that entire decline solely to WHFB.

In short, WHFB had just a fraction of 40ks popularity.

*Note that the longstanding recurring narrative among WHFB apologists is that The End Times generated some massive uptick in interest and sales for WHFB - the inferred data from this chart would seem to imply otherwise, while there may have been an increase in interest in WHFB there certainly was not a meaningful or significant change in the financial trends as a result of its release.

Presumably this one? The first image being lost to time is sad. Interesting data points.

 Overread wrote:
I can only guess he might mean AoS instead of Warhammer Fantasy?

Yes, that. But Tony never misses an opportunity to run wild misinterpreting an obvious gaffe.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah GW was an entirely different beast back then. Heck I doubt even they have the records for their finances from back then - I mean they might but it wouldn't shock me if they didn't considering all the changes, expansions and the fact that you only need to keep finance data for X number of years (6-10 years depending on the nature of it - from my 5 mins of googling).

It doesn't take much effort at all to find whats being discussed:

https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results/

For whatever reason they don't have the 2013-2014 results there, but you can find those here:

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/01/16/half-year-results-2013-2014/
https://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/07/29/annual-report-2013-14/?force_isolation=true

To summarize:

2013-2014 Financial Year

Last full year that was 100% WHFB, pre End Times (first End Times book released Aug 2014, well after GWs fiscal year ended).

Half Year 2013-2014 Revenue = 60.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 6.6 million GBP
Full Year 2013-2014 Revenue = 123.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 15.4 million GBP

Revenue(half/full) = 60.5/123.5 million, Profit(half/full) = 6.6/15.4 million.

This is our baseline.


2014-2015 Financial Year

The last End Times book was released March 2015, Age of Sigmar was not released until early July 2015. Technically this is a full year of WHFB, 100% during the End Times era, but given the abrupt end of the setting in fiction 3 months prior to the end of the fiscal year and the chilling effect that has, we give it the benefit of the doubt. Note that the popular narrative is that The End Times serious resulted in a massive uptick in sales and popularity for WHFB. Lets see how that plays out.

Half Year 2014-2015 Revenue = 56.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 5.5 million GBP
Full Year 2014-2015 Revenue = 119.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 15 million GBP

Revenue change from prior (half/full) = -4/-4.4 million, Profit(half/full) = -1.1/-0.4 million.

So, there was actually a general (but not significant) decrease in cash flows through the End Times era. This doesn't mean the End Times was a bust - these numbers include 40k sales performance after all, but if we assume that the decline was due to 40k, then we can safely assume that WHFBs performance was not strong enough to offset it. In my view, if The End Times was the big kicker that everyone claims it was, these numbers would not be that big, and realistically the ~3 months of lost sales following End Times: Archaon probably would not have made that big of an impact, as there were still many people buying stuff up under the assumption that the game would continue into a new edition of WHFB in some capacity.

It is worth mentioning that at this point in time GW was in a multiyear long revenue/profit downtrend - WHFB wasn't the reason for it, but it certainly played a part in it. Note that 40k 7th was released in May 2014, technically at the very end of the prior fiscal year - its unclear what impact this would have had on revenue/profit for 2014-2015, as one would assume much of the hype-purchasing was not captured in this fiscal year. This could explain, in part, the decline from 2013-2014 if the edition was released a bit early to try to front-load those sales and make their books look good for the current fiscal period (a common practice in publicly traded companies struggling to hit their numbers). As the "big summer release" mostly hit the prior period, GW missed capturing some of its revenue in 2014-2015.


2015-2016 Financial Year

Technicaly the first full year of Age of Sigmar, though no Age of Sigmar prodcut was available until 1-2 months into the fiscal year.

Half Year 2015-2016 Revenue = 55.3 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 4.7 million GBP
Full Year 2015-2016 Revenue = 118.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 10.9 million GBP

Revenue change from prior (half/full) = -1.2/-1 million, Profit(half/full) = -0.8/-4.1 million.

So, the first "full year" of Age of Sigmar mostly saw no meaningful or significant change from the End Times era. Note, I am using significant in this discussion in a statistical context - these numbers represent a less than ~2% change in performance on the Revenue side of things, which is within margin of error. Interestingly, the full year profit *did* see a fairly significant change in performance (~30% decline) - interrogating the annual report tells us this is primarily due to a decline in direct sales via GW retail stores and online/mail order sales, which was not adequately made up for by the increase in indirect sales which carry smaller profit margins for GW.

Its worth keeping in mind that during this period, Age of Sigmar saw extremely vicious backlash from the community, and aside from the Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound, all the AoS releases during this period were books with which to use existing models, with the exception of the Fyreslayers and Ironjawz, which launched with extremely limited model ranges. There weren't necessarily many people buying, and there wasn't really much to buy. For the declines in revenue/profit to be so generally small here, during a time when 7th edition 40k was (supposedly) hemmoraging players, I think says a lot about the performance of AoS relative to WHFB.

2016-2017 Financial Year

First actual 100% full year of Age of Sigmar, pre Generals Handbook (released August 2017). 40k 8th released in June 2017, so this year does not capture that, though The Gathering Storm (or whatever it was called) lead-up releases were in full swing through the last 6 months of the year (i.e. represented in full year financials but not half year financials), which may have driven hype-sales.

Half Year 2016-2017 Revenue = 70.9 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 9.7 million GBP
Full Year 2016-2017 Revenue = 158.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 30.8 million GBP

Revenue change from prior (half/full) = +15.6/+40 million, Profit (half/full) = +5/+19.9 million.
Revenue change from baseline (half/full) = +10.4/+34.6 million, Profit (half/full) = +3.1/+15.4 million.

So, some interesting stuff here. This was still the 7th edition era of 40k, a time that is widely regarded as having been the worst edition of the game to date. There were no meaningful or significant releases for it (in my view - I highly doubt the release of Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch moved the needle that much) through the half-year that would account for a very significant 28% increase in revenue (33% for full year) and 106% increase in profit (182% for full year) vs prior year. Comparing back to our WHFB baseline, we see a similar 28% increase in revenue, and a 100% increase in profit. While you could attribute strong growth through the second-half in the annual report to 40k hype-cycle via Gathering Storm, that performance was built on the back of something else in the 6 months prior.

During this period, the backlash against AoS began to die down, and additional new model releases for the game began to trickle out. Additionally, competitive events started using various homebrew points systems and rules mods in order to fix the mistakes that GW had made, which likely contributed to some interest there. Its not unreasonable to assume that some of this growth came via Age of Sigmar. For that to occur, would mean that Age of Sigmar would have had to be outselling WHFB, especially if we accept the idea that GW was seeing declining 40k sales during a period of particular unpopularity in the game. To some extent this is corroborated by the profit growth. If GW was previously spending $x per year to produce WHFB content and products but generating only small sales on it (potentially a loss as has often been rumored), that would logically cut into their profit margins. If that same investment was instead being applied to Age of Sigmar and was generating greater sales, then you would have growing margins as a result, particularly if those sales were net positive vs the investment vs the rumored net negative of WHFB in its twilight years.

Again, far from conclusive, as this is only an indirect measurement of WHFB vs Age of Sigmar, but it certainly challenges narratives.

As an aside, to put data to the previous claim of GW "surviving on" licensing fees, you can also see the royalties (i.e. licensing fees) receivable for each period through this - its pretty clear that claim is untrue. Their royalties amounted to all of 1-2 million GBP annually up until annual report 2016 when it jumped (probably on the back of Total War: Warhammer, ironically enough), at which point royalties made up 33% of GWs total operating profit (which was a record high, it never got above about ~25% in prior years. note year following, this declined to less than 20%, despite growth in dollar value of royalties receivable).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:

Spoiler:

chaos0xomega wrote:It occurred to me last night that we can estimate how relevant WHFB was to GW's finances in its final couple years of life. Observe:



So it doesn't mark when WHFB died, but it was August 2014. Because the chart is based on annual and half-year reports, theres not a good place to actually measure from that would completely or accurately capture the lost sales, but if we consider the WHFB "maximum" to be before that point at Jan 1 2014 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of 40k 7th), at which point The End Times hype cycle was in full swing, and consider the WHFB "minimum" to be Jan 1 2016 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of AoS GHB), we can very generously get a gauge of how much sales of WHFB minis and books contributed to GWs top line. So, marking the maximum with a red line, the minimum with a purple line, and marking the area we are focused on with the orange circle we get this:



Roughly speaking, it looks like WHFB was between 5-10 million GBP/year of revenue, lets call it 7.5 million, or about 5-6% of GWs total annual revenue at the time.

One key assumption made here is that WHFB was not already in a downward sales trend on Jan 1 2014 (and indeed the fact that the End Times books had started being released sometime prior to this, which was supposedly driving sales* would imply that WHFB sales would have been on an upswing at this time). Another key assumption here, which is intended to be as generous to WHFB as posslbe, is that the downward trend that continued from Jan 1 2014 onwards was 100% entirely due to the loss of WHFB and had nothing to do with 40k or the lackluster response to 7th ed 40k whatsoever. Likewise, final key assumption here is that the lowest point measured after WHFB was axed on Jan 1 2016 is due entirely to the loss of sales from WHFB and that Age of Sigmar was barely selling anything at all at this point. In essence, the idea here is that WHFB was undergoing a sales renaissance up until Jan 1 2014, and then it was killed and everyone stopped buying that product range until AoS GHB was released, and every lost dollar in that timeframe is 100% due to WHFB.

Again, the assumptions made are designed to be as generous to WHFB as humanly possible and in reality would probably indicate WHFB generated significantly more top-line revenue than it actually did. Even if we dial this up to 11 and assume the WHFB "maximum" was at Jan 1 2013 (i.e. GWs top line revenue maximum prior to the post AoS GHB peak) indicated with the yellow line/focus area in grey circle, you still only get about 20 million GBP max (in reality closer to 16-18, but Im being generous) or around ~16% of Revenue total - but for that to be true would require 40k to not have been on a sales and popularity downtrend at the time, which it was, so its hard to justify attributing that entire decline solely to WHFB.

In short, WHFB had just a fraction of 40ks popularity.

*Note that the longstanding recurring narrative among WHFB apologists is that The End Times generated some massive uptick in interest and sales for WHFB - the inferred data from this chart would seem to imply otherwise, while there may have been an increase in interest in WHFB there certainly was not a meaningful or significant change in the financial trends as a result of its release.

Presumably this one? The first image being lost to time is sad. Interesting data points.

Good find. Not sure this is the one I was thinking of, I recall a similar one that did a lot more number crunching, but it may have been on reddit instead. Either way, my most recent post I think covers the hard numbers better.

Id imagine to begin with, it’s going to be the in fed books like we had with 30k, lists will probably be based on total war and reuse as much as it can from AoS (which is a lot).

It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.

 RustyNumber wrote:
It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.

GW has always been awful for crossover models - stupid but true

 RustyNumber wrote:
It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.

GW sculpting doctrine has changed massively, it is a whole new thinking.

A good example being the in store models. I made a Guardsman in my local GW last week. Previously the store manager would take a box set of a faction, allow you to cut out one model and either put the bits in a little box, or build it there and then. Now there has been one formal change, the miniature must be cut out and assembled in store. Why? because Gw no longer provides a sprue from a regular box set, they have a miniature of the month on its own spruelike a character miniature. So they produced a character miniature of a standard guardsman with lasgun.
This says a whole lot. They produced a sculpt a metal tool for molding and made a full production run of a rank and file miniature that would normally fit in a character boxset and released it for free. They insist that you cut up the sprue on the spot so it has no eBay value. Confirming this is a very limited run. And they will be doing this every month.

The fact that GW can just throw away plastic miniature tooling, normally a heavy investment, is a strong indicator of the resource level the company has and how it is effecting their thinking. I had a discussion with the store manager about new lizardmen and Old World specifically. Apparently they are resculpting everything or seperating the base contained Old World line from the looser poses AoS miniatures. There will be crossover, but not intentionally such. It looks like GW are potentially doubling their tooling to have factions in both rank and file and skirmish format, sculpts will also change as we are seeing. Expect Seraphon to be different from Lizardmen as they are in the lore. Expect a distinction between the two model lines, though crossovers are expected. I cant wait to get hold of the new astrolith bearer as my BSB, but I wont be trying to fit new Saurus into ranked blocks. I had enough troubles adapting Blood Knights.

RustyNumber wrote:It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.

32mm square bases, maybe...? Or would that represent more of an investment than they're planning to make?

From what Orlanth is saying, GW might well be going to invest a lot more into separate lines of minis instead of making a new size base so AoS players can use the AoS minis for TOW. That way (in theory) an AoS player wanting to get into TOW has to buy a whole new army, even if they want to play the 'same' army for both.

We all know that will either get the AoS player to get creative when playing TOW, or just not bother playing TOW, rather than spend the money on a whole new 'same' army, but GW doesn't seem to think that way.

GW is doing the same with Horus Heresy

They see that there is demand for 2 different communities, without much crossover potential

there are rather people coming from 30k playing 40k with the same models, than people wanting to play 30k with their 40k models
If GW would think there is enough potential to get the main game players into the side game, we would have seen rules for Eldar and Orks on release of 30k

the same for TOW, hence also the focus on factions that don't exist in AoS (as Empire is soon gone too)
there is no need to grow the playerbase by making it compatible with existing AoS armies, it is simply there to catch those that would otherwise go to other companies

Oh I'll not complain if we, for example, get the new Saurus sculpts for TOW but slightly different so they rank and file, but it'd be a very odd decision.

And they can't exactly offer value for money if they flog minis 10 at a time for AoS for a premium price, but you want 20 for a basic TOW unit which would be absurdly expensive.

it is more that likely that we won't see new Saurus at all for TOW

but just an 8th Edition level index list and nothing else

@Orlanth: It depends on the manager. I've never once been asked to assemble the monthly model in store old way or the new purpose boxed ones. He just tosses one or two(when I bring my son in with me) into the bag and off we go.

 Vulcan wrote:
From what Orlanth is saying, GW might well be going to invest a lot more into separate lines of minis instead of making a new size base so AoS players can use the AoS minis for TOW. That way (in theory) an AoS player wanting to get into TOW has to buy a whole new army, even if they want to play the 'same' army for both.

This is correct from what I observed and on result of leading questions. It doesn't make it necessarily true.
They are however 'starting over' with The Old World.

 Vulcan wrote:

We all know that will either get the AoS player to get creative when playing TOW, or just not bother playing TOW, rather than spend the money on a whole new 'same' army, but GW doesn't seem to think that way.

However I do not share that conclusion. AOS players use round bases. Dual function armies will be from the statistical few who plat AOS with square based armies with the army itself pulling double duty, or more for 9th Age or Kings of War. Those people are a statistical anomaly who can be ignored for marketing purposes, or are wealthy enough or entrenched enough to recommit.

One thing to add. We all know and GW acknowledges that the thirst for the a return to WHFB is fueled by Total War Warhammer. They recognise that getting ride of the setting was a mistake. More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.

The point being all the Cathay minis exist in 3d somewhere in GW HQ including the gun balloon. You can see AOS era scaling in these larger miniatures. It also explains why you cant give Skaven a rat ogre bodyguard or war litter mount, it was in 8th, but GW never made a miniature for it, and Thanquol isn't released yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:
@Orlanth: It depends on the manager. I've never once been asked to assemble the monthly model in store old way or the new purpose boxed ones. He just tosses one or two(when I bring my son in with me) into the bag and off we go.

My manager wasn't being a dick, we get on OK and normally I cut the pieces off and leave. So I can use my knife on them at home. He was following new doctrines.
Evidently your local manager didn't care about that. Save one or two of the solo sprues, they might be worth something to a collector later.

More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.

The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD

I haven't been following too closely, but is there any indication that the The Old World might follow the basing pattern of games like Runewars and Song of Ice and Fire? That is to say, ranked games with individually based miniatures but larger bases and more spread out on their movement trays Seems to me like this is the only way GW can keep anywhere near it's current price-per-figure and the size and style that folks raised on AoS are used to while still producing a ranked-unit, "mass battle" game that players can (relatively speaking) afford.

When you compare traditional 20mm WHFB basing to 30mm SOIAF the math is pretty Stark (heh, heh...) and depending on whether you use SOIAF figs on their own trays or just fitting them on a WHFB tray it's something like 10-20% of the number of SOIAF figures vs the old WHFB standard.

I've got no basis for any of this, but it's an interesting thought experiment when you consider the quickly increasing amount of space taken up by larger figures on larger bases.

 Mr Morden wrote:

More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.

The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD

We don't know this. There were several unreleased lines with advanced prototypes made.

Also some were Forgeworld minis seen in Storm of Magic that are now in the Vampire Coast roster. It would not surprise me if conversions by GW staff in White Dwarf was official enough to permit a digital reconstruction and inclusion. We have characters and ship models from Dreadfleet. Perhaps there never was a Noctilus and Aranesss Saltspite model, but there was one of this ships which was included, plus artwork, and that might have been enough for an include.

Eh? Total War has all sorts of weird stuff like the chameleon stalker skinks for Lizardmen or red crested skinks. And yeah the whole Vampire Counts thing.

I know they worked hand in hand with GW for everything but I don't ever recall reading a hard rule for "only stuff we actually had planned/modelled"

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.

The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD

We don't know this. There were several unreleased lines with advanced prototypes made.

Also some were Forgeworld minis seen in Storm of Magic that are now in the Vampire Coast roster. It would not surprise me if conversions by GW staff in White Dwarf was official enough to permit a digital reconstruction and inclusion. We have characters and ship models from Dreadfleet. Perhaps there never was a Noctilus and Aranesss Saltspite model, but there was one of this ships which was included, plus artwork, and that might have been enough for an include.

Yes buts thate very different from what you said - "only include units for which there was a real model for." We know that CA and C7 have to run everything by GW.

The Vampire Coast WD conversions did not have all the units and there are some in TW - like the Gunnery Wight and Depth Guard which are not even mentioned in the army list.

There are also the Eshin Triads and Sorcerer - alot of 6th Ed stuff in variant armies never had (or needed) models!

I have a copy of 'The Art of the Games' released for Total War 3 and they very much go against that. Loads of references to where they came up with original designs, ran ideas past GW and generally worked alongside their IP rather than being slaved to it. Apparently they had massive influence in updating older kit designs or even redesigning in-production kits, such as making Grimgor much bigger and scarier than his tabletop model.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Yes buts thate very different from what you said - "only include units for which there was a real model for." We know that CA and C7 have to run everything by GW.

No, its exactly the same, you just cropped the quote to remove most of the information. I don't not accuse you of this being deliberate.

More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.

You don't recognise many of the unit used in Total War Warhammer 2 because they were never released. That doesn't mean they were never sculpted or assembled by Citadel studio staff.

 Mr Morden wrote:

The Vampire Coast WD conversions did not have all the units and there are some in TW - like the Gunnery Wight and Depth Guard which are not even mentioned in the army list.

Likely from the list of unreleased miniatures.

 Mr Morden wrote:

There are also the Eshin Triads and Sorcerer - alot of 6th Ed stuff in variant armies never had (or needed) models!

I would be all over a book of unused GW concept art. It's been a decade or more since we got those great Jes Goodwin and John Blanche books.

I'm still better we never got an army of Jes Goodwin scribes.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I would be all over a book of unused GW concept art. It's been a decade or more since we got those great Jes Goodwin and John Blanche books.

I'm still better we never got an army of Jes Goodwin scribes.

I WISH GW would do more of that kind of book and actually sell them for more than a 1-2 week period.

Lore and Art books from GW would be fantastic.

Back in the day there was a lot of discussion about how LotR was pulling people away from WHFB and cutting it off from new players.

LotR was a huge cash cow, and a lot of folks (like me) assumed that when the boom faded, the "lost generation" of WHFB players would hurt GW. I think we vastly underestimated the profit potential of 40k, particularly in light of GW's accelerated product cycle.

I wonder what the actual product numbers show. On the one hand, I get GW decided to "go small" and try for a skirmish game whose IP they have locked down as much as humanly possible. On the other hand, a lot of GW's fantasy sales certainly went to people who had no interest in the game but used them for D&D or Pathfinder or other things. Fantasy/historicals are the most fungible miniatures segment, and it's no great stretch for GW to realize that the outflow (to other games) exceeded the inflow (non-standard models in private gaming settings).

In addition to LOTR, I think the sales of WHFB minis to folks not interested in the GW setting (not counting GW figure collectors who don't play) probably dropped off due to a combination of:

-Increasing mainstream figure alternatives.

-Increasing Price of WHFB miniatures.

-Decreasing availability of relatively affordable, low model count, WHFB blister packs.

Back in the day a RPGer could visit the FLGS and compare blister packs from WHFB, Reaper and likely a couple other games /companies to choosing their fantasy minis. Citadel always came at a premium but not outrageously so. GW has abandoned that market. Today a well stocked FLGS will have a plethora of fantasy minis on offer for less than 10 bucks, but they won't be GW.

 Eilif wrote:
Back in the day a RPGer could visit the FLGS and compare blister packs from WHFB, Reaper and likely a couple other games /companies to choosing their fantasy minis. Citadel always came at a premium but not outrageously so. GW has abandoned that market. Today a well stocked FLGS will have a plethora of fantasy minis on offer for less than 10 bucks, but they won't be GW.

This was the "gateway drug" for my gaming group. Citadel Miniatures were often very affordable, especially when you wanted the party to face more than one monster (say a dozen orcs). Over time, we started thinking about having our "lord-level" characters build retinues and wage bigger battles, and for all its faults, WHFB was far superior to the old TSR Battlesystem.

How much that still applies I'm not sure, but some of the new fantasy kits could be "boss monster" types and therefore worth a premium price tag.

We still don't know much about the planned WFB rank-and-file game, do we?

I wonder if they might opt to keep round bases, while introducing trays like A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game? (large rectangular trays with holes for round, individually based models, for those who don't know ASOIF). I recently discovered this game, and it's absolutely fantastic - but I'm missing my 'high fantasy'. What kept me away from ASOIF initially was that it's (mostly) an all-human focus, very few monsters and no elves/dwarves/etc.

But the off board machinations of your non combat units and the cardplay of ASOIF are just genius, and make it so fun and interesting relative to other wargames I've played. It feels a bit like Deadzone (a little) or maybe the way 40K might play (with strategems, but I've not played 40K in a long time). I sure hope they're able to integrate these more "modern" gameplay elements, as they've really made table top wargaming much more fun, IMO!