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.

Necromunda and Epic aren’t even vaguely comparable though.

One is a Skirmish game.

The other one is the mass combat of mass combat games.

Polar opposites in terms of desired/required unit variety.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Necromunda and Epic aren’t even vaguely comparable though.

One is a Skirmish game.

The other one is the mass combat of mass combat games.

Polar opposites in terms of desired/required unit variety.

Okay, so in skirmish games the last faction can get its new sprue 2 years after the first because skirmish games don't need variety but they're getting new sprues at all because...?

Chopstick wrote:
People believed GW didn't think LI will profit must have missed the gazillion of plastic kits revealed, that's several years worth of other Specialist games releases combined.

They dont even need to release multiple kits. Every kit they release is expected to make profit. They don"t do kits they don"t expect to sell more than it takes them to design, produce and sell it.

That's how companies work. If they released kits and games expecting to fail to get profit they aren't even staying in business. They would need to get loans until they go bust.

And as above guy said gw is not gambling. They go for steady predictable profit. They don't take risky gambles. Maybe they miss on max profit on good day but they avoid bad disasters more likely.

Regarding GW`s pricing, profit making etc., here`s fun little excercise: cheapest 3rd party seller I could find in Poland online right now which offers LI core set pre-order has it listed at 528 PLN, which at current exchange is ~105 GBP. GW`s listing is 120 GBP, and we need to remember that the 3rd party shop also has to make profit. So GW is able to still at the very least break even at this kit selling it at less than 15 GBP below regular price, keeping in mind that the content of this box is already discounted compared to buying all the parts separately. Gives an interesting insight how high GW`s profit margins could be.

Quicker to get that straight from the horse’s mouth by checking their publicly available and independently verified End Of Year figures.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/ost7hseic9hc/3Bxadr0YTIX0hGl1H7DPGe/8e1361726a8e0c8dfef9bcdae8299480/2022-23_accounts_-_final.pdf

£470m income. Core profit before tax £170m.

Healthy to be sure. But not the profit margin some might expect. 36% by my quick maths.

Dunno how much tax comes off that though.

Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.

GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.

Or we can rely on facts and not biased, pre-supposed Chinny Reckons

Well I would expect the cost of making said tooling is split among the price of however many sets they expect to sell. I`m the last person to be defending GW or any other manufacturer in terms of pricing, but we have to remember that the price of a kit is a lot more than just the cost of plastic - GW`s enormous marketing has to be financed somehow as well, and it`s always the customer who pays for that. Even trivial things like boxes in which we get the models can cost a surprising amount.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.

GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.

They literally could not, as MDG has just demonstrated with sourcing.

And those figures include GW's licensing operations, which are significantly better margin wise than product is.

Since apparently they can't keep up with demand of their existing lines, every cent they invest into designing new kits is pure loss.

How do you come to that rather odd conclusion?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do you come to that rather odd conclusion?

Because they could simply produce the kits they have already and meet the demand for those and still sell everything they can produce

How?

Nothing new, means you lose audience attention. Lose audience attention, and you are gonna lose sales, because there’s no impetus to buy more.

Keep releasing new stuff? People need/want to buy the new stuff, or even add something to their existing force to counter whatever the new thing might do.


This is pretty basic marketing stuff. And indeed a core of capitalism.

Yes, I'm presuming he understands this too and wasn't seriously suggesting GW stop new releases.

The demand for existing kits could probably take up the whole of their productivity capacity though.

I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and doubt that. I mean, GW stitched to a weekly release cycle from a monthly one for a reason.

And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.

 xttz wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Has anyone seen a review that goes in depth on the terrain rules? There would seem to be far more pages of rules than the 1 page titanicus had.

Yeah the GMG rules review posted here earlier covers terrain in detail, and with a lot of enthusiasm.

It was surely the best so far, ash said the in depth terrain video is coming on wed. Just trying to figure out if ruins are destructible or not, will affect some terrain projects for LI, I have hear about titans stomping structures, but we already knew those were destructible, just hoping other scatter terrain is as well.

If memory serves, one of the early articles confirmed destructible terrain, but you’ll need the right tool for the job.

For instance, the Macro Cannon used to be able to blat buildings, but the Volcano Cannon could not. At least according to my hazy memory.

I think artillery could as well, but it wasn’t easy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How?

Nothing new, means you lose audience attention. Lose audience attention, and you are gonna lose sales, because there’s no impetus to buy more.

Keep releasing new stuff? People need/want to buy the new stuff, or even add something to their existing force to counter whatever the new thing might do.


This is pretty basic marketing stuff. And indeed a core of capitalism.

As lamentable as it is to feel like the first supplement is day one DLC, for people who aren't as obsessed or excited just in terms of work and life commitments, I can definitely see it being preferable to take it all in in waves, especially if they're collecting both armies and not splitting the starter.

I think the biggest problem is reviews can't feel that "complete" and it also makes discussing balance a challenge in that could see it upended quickly with the supplement. But ya I still prefer this to titanicus where the books just added endless tiny variations/factions rules that sorta worked against learning anything by heart because it was constantly shifting with wargear/mutations and new factions rules.


I've seen some speculation that the cyclops will have the usr that allows them to damage structures, Hoping that's true.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If memory serves, one of the early articles confirmed destructible terrain, but you’ll need the right tool for the job.

For instance, the Macro Cannon used to be able to blat buildings, but the Volcano Cannon could not. At least according to my hazy memory.

I think artillery could as well, but it wasn’t easy.

Warcom confirmed structures, but not if stuff like ruins will also be able to be removed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If memory serves, one of the early articles confirmed destructible terrain, but you’ll need the right tool for the job.

Oh, and you can blow up buildings with the right weapons… or a Titan fist!

10 Things You Need To Know About Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and doubt that. I mean, GW stitched to a weekly release cycle from a monthly one for a reason.

And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.

You seem to be reading a criticism of GW here somewhere, there isn't one.

Obviously GW should keep releasing new stuff, like you say it grabs attention and builds hype. Not only for the new releases themselves but everything else.

They do have a huge demand that they can't keep up with, that's hardly a controversial observation.

Cyclops are described as demolitions, so that would be cool.

Only grump from me about Week One releases is I can’t add Predators, Leman Russ or Sicaran. Or I suppose Malcadors, but I’ve never been a fan of their design. So I can immediately start building up what’s in the box.

Hopefully it won’t be long though. At £24 a set from a discounter, I’m happy to be able to drop £100 a month to expand. Spesh as Epic is a doddle to paint.

The previewed enough in the warcom terrain article below to show that structures are separate from ruins which are separate from area terrain, again its specificity here im looking for in regards to ruins with concepts that are already out there. I undesrtand structures can be destroyed, the problem is you replace structures with area terrain and not ruins. Ruins have their own rules, but as with area terrain they just gave a few bullet points in an infographic in the article.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

I pre ordered a box of the new ruins, so just concerned about how its all gonna come together rules wise. People are envisioning replacing structures with ruins, but going by the warcom article that isn't how it will work, the destroyed structures are replaced with area terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and doubt that. I mean, GW stitched to a weekly release cycle from a monthly one for a reason.

And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.

You seem to be reading a criticism of GW here somewhere, there isn't one.

Obviously GW should keep releasing new stuff, like you say it grabs attention and builds hype. Not only for the new releases themselves but everything else.

They do have a huge demand that they can't keep up with, that's hardly a controversial observation.

Even just with HH they have no shortage of units to make that are yet to have been made 1/4 scale.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.

That's so weird, because somehow folks online always understand enough about GW's business to deflect any criticism aimed at it, sometimes even with contradictory statements in different threads

Having ideas and suggestions doesn’t make them good ideas or suggestions.

But making odd claims like “developing new products us a waste of money” is a silly statement.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.

GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.

Ah yes. Tooling, salary of guy designing mini's. Arts, warehouse, store staff all obviously shouldn't be put to price. Only material. Yes that makes sense. I'm sure goterment/banks are happy to donate cash for rest.

As much as I love good *dumb* argument, I grow weary of the current one.

So someone else start a different, dumb, off topic argument.

Or at least stop this one.

Anyways.

Unless my eyes deceive me, looking at the Predator Sprues? Seems we get six turrets for three hulls. So whilst the sponsons need a bit of faff for Swapsies, we can at least fairly freely swap between Destructor and Annihilator turrets.

Same maybe be true for the Malcador as well, as the main turrets look like you just need to trim them down, and you’ll be able to slide them in and out (oooer).

Leman Russ however appear “built it that way, stuck that way” one the turrets.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.

GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.

I mean technically you're not wrong, as they already do this now. GW products are sold to trade customers at 50-60% of the retail price depending on region. Approximately half of their overall sales are made this way.

The issue is; if they were to reduce the current retail prices by 50% can they then also afford to make a corresponding cut to the trade sales too? If they don't then many of these smaller businesses will reduce buying or cease trading altogether, affecting half of GW's sales. If they do reduce trade pricing to 25-30% of current retail that may well actually make GW unprofitable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyways.

Unless my eyes deceive me, looking at the Predator Sprues? Seems we get six turrets for three hulls. So whilst the sponsons need a bit of faff for Swapsies, we can at least fairly freely swap between Destructor and Annihilator turrets.

Yeah a few reviewers have confirmed you can build the turrets for both predator variants and just swap between them. Doesn't even need magnets, the turret just pops in.

Apparently the baneblade turret is built with magnet holes like AT weapons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or we can rely on facts and not biased, pre-supposed Chinny Reckons

Fact is they did sell their stuff at 50% to us redshirsts, and according to the region manager, they still made a profit on those.

You’re taking 50% to maybe a few hundred folk worldwide. Not the same as cutting your prices 50%.