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.

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. The reaction of established players to major revisions to rules and units would also suggest the opposite. In fact I think they’ve actually become more ruthless about this business model, especially with the 3-year edition cycle - everything feels more disposable. The only qualification is that, as far as WH40k is concerned, they are also pandering to the competitive lobby - possibly because they seem to be prepared to discard existing models and buy large quantities of whatever is newly competitive whenever the meta changes (which is frequently).

The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. The reaction of established players to major revisions to rules and units would also suggest the opposite. In fact I think they’ve actually become more ruthless about this business model, especially with the 3-year edition cycle - everything feels more disposable. The only qualification is that, as far as WH40k is concerned, they are also pandering to the competitive lobby - possibly because they seem to be prepared to discard existing models and buy large quantities of whatever is newly competitive whenever the meta changes (which is frequently).

The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Tbf, the HH crowd was made up of the vets that had enough from mainline 40k to a large degree.

I'm just using this whole debacle as a recruiting drive for Adeptus Titanicus.

We haven't had a new book in forever, but we keep getting new models (with rules!) - so join on to the best Horus Heresy game ever written!

I think that if anything hurts 30k sales, it won't be the new core rules or even the loss of options, it was when GW decided to cut every 30k unit out of 40k, removing a major market for the kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Yes, that's absolutely true. CCS put up a post in the Heresy N&R section that summarises our addiction:

"Look, I've explained this to you anti-GW types (maybe even you specifically) before.
They make models, I buy models.
When they make models that satisfy me concerning Price/Quality (including sculpt, material, etc)/My interests & needs/Availability (to an extent)? They get my $.
When they fail? They don't make a sale.
It's that simple.
I foresee this pattern continuing until I'm dead or shortly before. Or they go out of business. Wichever comes 1st. And I know wich I'm betting on."

But remember that those of us posting on forums are not really typical of the majority of players. Every time GW churns out a new edition, a proportion of its player base says 'f**k it, I'm out'. Killing off the Old World in favour of AoS did it, and the last few editions of WH40k did it too. I suspect that GW have worked out that the shelf life of an average player is about 3 years. So after that period they can basically start the whole thing again; the profits from the influx of new players more than justifies the loss of a proportion of their more established players.

GW makes great models, and the Horus Heresy line is one of my favorites they have ever produced. I will continue to build my Salamanders army of mostly 30K Marines, because I put that project off for too long. I'm super excited about the new Saturnine figures, and I'm planning on getting at least one of the new starter sets.

That said, I will not be playing any games with GW rules again in my lifetime. To get the updated army books I need for my armies I'm planning or have would cost too much money, and I would rather put that towards the minis. Rather, I'm writing my own mini-agnostic rules to play my games with that I can include my other sci-fi armies from other armies and games I have accumulated over the years. I'm having more fun in writing and play testing my own game with my closest gaming buddies than I ever did with GW or other games over the years. I'm just at a point in my life that I want to work on projects that I have always wanted to do, and I figured this is as good a time as any to do it.

But to anyone that wants to play HH 3.0, go for it! I bear no ill will towards other rules or anyone who enjoys them. Have fun, and get some more paint on those minis!

Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

I'm not planning on playing HH3.0, but not for any of the reasons everyone online is complaining about.

I bought into 2.0 and was pretty excited to get into it, but I just haven't had the time with getting more into the competitive side of 40k, without dropping off the casual / narrative side. I've gotten all of 2 games of 30k in since 2.0 dropped and that's just not enough for me to invest into more books and models I will hardly ever use. On top of that, there's nothing in the box set that I'd use in 40k since I already have more tactical marines than I'd ever need and the others won't get rules...

I might give it a spin if I have the time once waha gets all the rules there, but I'm not investing in another batch of books I'll hardly ever use.

Heresy Hammer have produced what is basically a ‘how to cope with 3rd Edition’ video. It’s quite helpful. However, it pre-dates the news regarding the contents of (and rationale for) the pdf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzKg0L3XBBo

I'm going to buy the Knight and Titan book, because I love AT, and more stories, and useless trivia makes me happy.

Ii still look at the old Knight codicies and AT campaign books for fun.


Plus, I might be able to play HH 3.0, as it costs too much for me to play 2.0 (needed another 300+ dollars to buy/build/paint the Armiger Tax, and couldn't use the Moriax).

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Yes, that's absolutely true. CCS put up a post in the Heresy N&R section that summarises our addiction:

"Look, I've explained this to you anti-GW types (maybe even you specifically) before.
They make models, I buy models.
When they make models that satisfy me concerning Price/Quality (including sculpt, material, etc)/My interests & needs/Availability (to an extent)? They get my $.
When they fail? They don't make a sale.
It's that simple.
I foresee this pattern continuing until I'm dead or shortly before. Or they go out of business. Wichever comes 1st. And I know wich I'm betting on."

But remember that those of us posting on forums are not really typical of the majority of players. Every time GW churns out a new edition, a proportion of its player base says 'f**k it, I'm out'. Killing off the Old World in favour of AoS did it, and the last few editions of WH40k did it too. I suspect that GW have worked out that the shelf life of an average player is about 3 years. So after that period they can basically start the whole thing again; the profits from the influx of new players more than justifies the loss of a proportion of their more established players.

Yeah, that's it. I remember watching a video interview of someone who used to work at GW laying it out:
* Plastic kit molds are so expensive that if they dont expect to see sales in the 100k's, they wont do it
* The most money spent on GW stores comes from middle aged women (Lil Timmy's mom)
* Player retention is somewhere between 3-4 years ie. they dont make business decisions for people like us

Now granted, HH audience isnt the same audience as 40K/AOS, but I'm not convinced the management realizes this..

These are the harsh realities of modern GW and many people huff copium like madmen trying to delulu thinking they matter

Piousservant wrote:
Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

How exactly do you differ from me?

Models
I've always bought GW models when it suited my needs/wants (& if the price was right - no, I will NOT be buying a Kharon pattern transport from GW. Not at that price)
GW has consistently produced models I've liked. They don't show any inclination of stopping either. Thus my statement that I expect to be buying them until I die.

Rules
This is 2025 - I don't need to buy GWs rules in order to play their games....
Once upon a time, particularly concerning WHFB, I'd joke that "I don't need to buy GW models to play this game, just their rules".
Now it's "I don't need to buy GWs minis OR GWs rules to play this game".

I buy the models because I like them better than many of the alternatives.
I buy (some of) the rules for the convenience of not haveing to read them on my phone/tablet.
Or in some cases because they come bundled into box sets & it's cheaper to get the minis that way than as individual kits.

ccs wrote:

Piousservant wrote:
Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

How exactly do you differ from me?

Models
I've always bought GW models when it suited my needs/wants (& if the price was right - no, I will NOT be buying a Kharon pattern transport from GW. Not at that price)
GW has consistently produced models I've liked. They don't show any inclination of stopping either. Thus my statement that I expect to be buying them until I die.

Rules
This is 2025 - I don't need to buy GWs rules in order to play their games....
Once upon a time, particularly concerning WHFB, I'd joke that "I don't need to buy GW models to play this game, just their rules".
Now it's "I don't need to buy GWs minis OR GWs rules to play this game".

I buy the models because I like them better than many of the alternatives.
I buy (some of) the rules for the convenience of not haveing to read them on my phone/tablet.
Or in some cases because they come bundled into box sets & it's cheaper to get the minis that way than as individual kits.

Ah fair enough, not so different then - was just going off what I kind of read into the post above.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:

Yeah, that's it. I remember watching a video interview of someone who used to work at GW laying it out:
* Plastic kit molds are so expensive that if they dont expect to see sales in the 100k's, they wont do it
* The most money spent on GW stores comes from middle aged women (Lil Timmy's mom)
* Player retention is somewhere between 3-4 years ie. they dont make business decisions for people like us

Now granted, HH audience isnt the same audience as 40K/AOS, but I'm not convinced the management realizes this..

These are the harsh realities of modern GW and many people huff copium like madmen trying to delulu thinking they matter

Y'know 'd love to know what data that's based on. I don't necessarily doubt that's GWs thinking; but I'm just genuinely curious what the actual data they use to reach those conclusions. They've never seemed to invest in any market research, or even be interested in doing any, and beyond the obvious data they do have, particularly from their own online store, I really am sceptical they have enough information to really understand their market that well. For instance, it seems pretty plausible that most money in stores is from parents, but I don't think we've ever seen or heard anything which would tell us that they have any hard data on the gender/age profile of spending in store (online of course they will have better data).

It does seem most likely that any such data (assuming they do actually do some real analysis and not just make a bunch of sweeping assumptions) is going to be almost entirely derived from their online store. And I have to wonder how accurate a picture that paints, for example I suspect there is a trend of people who get into their games and maybe start out buying direct but as they get more involved in the hobby (and better informed) may well end up switching and spending more at their FLGS and/or discount retailers online. Which might look to GW like someone who they've lost as a customer, but that isn't really the case from a retention perspective and I can't see how they'd get the data from third parties to reliably be able to say otherwise.

Which again isn't to say that GW don't think those things you've said, but as an analyst I just remain very sceptical that they really have the right data to draw those conclusions until such times as they conduct a series of proper surveys not just of instore/online direct customers but 3rd party customers too. Would be fascinating to see the data if they ever did though.

Yeah, if youre referring to the video i think youre referring to, that perspective is based on their expsrience as an employee 10+ years ago. The business model of 2025 GW has changed radically from where it was in 2015.

In this case you could also just watch the Interview series of former GW "core" people which also left 10+ years ago
the only intresting one here for the context would be the one with Ronnie Renton as this tells how GW sales strategy changed over time so you get an idea how they are working

but outside of a general idea, everything else would be based on outdated information

And I don't think they even care to get the "right" conclusions as their metric would be rather simple, if something sells, it sells, if it does not it needs change.
40k having the best sales, so anything that should also sell better gets the same buisness model

also my personal impression in here is that 40k sells despite what GW is doing, not because of it (and the managment might think otherwise because if it sells, it sells), hence why their other games struggle with the same buisness model as the reason why people buy and play aren't the same and therefore not selling that well despite what they are doing but selling worse because of it

So someone might have thought that doing the very same as in 40k would get them the same sales results in the long run, as they also upset the community several times there but still had new records in sales every single time

PS:
for the topic, no I am not going to play HH3 and also not going to buy the new boxes.
core box looked good but the Saturnine are too large for my liking and I still have enough old models for my heresy Wolves to build and paint so I don't need anything
but a plastic Fellblade might make its way and will finally replace the scratch build one (based on a 1/35 IS-3)

To me it sounds like those who are going to be investing HH 3.0 will be people who:

A) Never played HH 2.0

-or-

B) Did not like HH 2.0

-or-

C) Enjoy playing HH with others and are drug kicking and screaming into 3.0 by the local community.

I'm in C, but it's the AdeptiCon community and my buddies I see 2/3 times a year, rather than local game group.

I don't want to update, but I do want to play.

Honestly, for me, I've not played much of HH2.0 and a 3rd edition already left me feeling a little jaded. Some of the rules and snippets coming out looked good and I thought, alright, may be good. Then came the leaks and I got cold feet. Only ended up pre-ordering the journal which I've already cancelled.

I've got a large HH1.0 collection of Alpha Legion, mostly resin that I've still got a ton to churn through and paint, a lot of them are legacies aleady (Skorr, Destroyers, MkIV Castraferrums with Flamerstorms, Achilles Alpha, mixed weapon Vet Squads). I'll likely work on finishing that collection off to HH1.0 standards.

I've been slowly building up White Scars and Iron Warriors to HH2.0 standards using new plastics and recent sculpts. I'll continue working on them over time and I'll likely pick the odd sprue up here or there from box splitters and collection clearance sellers when I get capacity. I like the new MKII's and Saturnine's, however, despise the new Centurion - far too busy compared to earlier Resin Centurions, but that's personal taste.

So, HH3.0 is likely a no, but who knows, as I'll continue buying models I want in an ad-hoc sense when I get a gap in my painting queue.

Not a chance. I’m grateful for the leaks, or I could have wasted my money and been even more disappointed than I am now. Sticking to 2.0

I think rules-wise, it might be worth using the models with the original WH40K: Rogue Trader book. Plenty of vehicles and robots, and Imperial stuff. The book does get reprints once in a while, yet this edition of 30K will be resigned to the book recycling banks in 3 years time.

SamusDrake wrote:
I think rules-wise, it might be worth using the models with the original WH40K: Rogue Trader book. Plenty of vehicles and robots, and Imperial stuff. The book does get reprints once in a while, yet this edition of 30K will be resigned to the book recycling banks in 3 years time.

I dunno - I am old enough to have played RT when it came out, and it's not really a wargame. More of a hybrid role-playing game. It's a great book, but more for the unhinged imagery and other stuff that is still inspiring.

You're not wrong about the transitory nature of current editions of the rules - I still have my RT rulebook (and my 3rd Edition book), but the rest of my WH40k rulebooks (and most of the codexes) are all just landfill now.