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.

How do!

Spinning off from the Heresy thread where this possibility first came up, and further chat may support. Placed here as it’s neither news nor rumour, nor game system specific,

As you’ll know, for a while now GW had gone with a three year edition cycle, where it was once four years or so, give or take. And the three years would go 40K, AoS, Random Big Box Game, 40K, AoS, Random Big Box Game and so on.

The cycle is seemingly largely driven by economics. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) include Like for Like (L4L) Growth each month. So when you drop 40K in July? The next July you need another Big Ticket Item to help those L4L KPI’s, and the July after that. And you can’t just keep releasing a new edition of 40K every year. Well. I mean. You probably could. But I don’t think anyone would like that.

Except….we now know Horus Heresy has joined that three year cycle, which would seem to preclude future Big Box Games. Stuff like Legions Imperialis, Warhammer Quest etc. And from the Annual Report, it’s confirmed The Old World is now a fourth Main Game.

So, it follows that with a doubling of Main Games, the current three year cycle may not work. I mean, sure, you could do a double release in a year. But see those L4L KPI’s? Thats for every month. Not just your traditional Big Month. So doing, purely for argument sake, HH and ToW in the same year is just creating the same challenge in another month.

The current opinion from those chatting about it is a four year cycle. 40K, AoS, HH, ToW, then rinse and repeat. Still too rapid a turnover for a fair number of folk, but probably better than a three year turnaround? I’ll of course let you set your own appetite and attitude to that,

The other potential upside is we may have longer between Major System Changes, which based on loose knowledge of 40k’s record, could mean 8 years between major changes, rather than 6. Again this is speculative.

But…what do you reckon? And if the earlier reckoning reported above does bear out, is it sufficient improvement?

For the metrics do you think GW is savvy enough to know that like for like comparisons is not per year, but game cycle? So if 11th drops in July of ‘26, they won’t compare it to last month, but go back to the launch of 10th and the Leviathan box?

 Nevelon wrote:
For the metrics do you think GW is savvy enough to know that like for like comparisons is not per year, but game cycle? So if 11th drops in July of ‘26, they won’t compare it to last month, but go back to the launch of 10th and the Leviathan box?

It is not GW that looks at the KPI's, it is investors and analysts. The purpose of such metrics is to allow technical analysis of companies without having to understand in detail how their business works. Is it superficial? Yes, but as is always the case, the measure ends up becoming the goal.

And GW is absolutely a sufficiently large and mature company that they have people that understand how markets work. It's not just a bunch of hobbyists being confused at how financial analysis think. Fortunately, GW also has people who actually understand their products and that they need a certain level of quality.

I personally wouldn't mind a slower-paced edition cycle. While TOW is apparently a success, I think it's still too premature to say whether it will remain so for long enough to enter a cycle.

Also, these "cycles" change often enough that they rarely go for more than a few iterations, so it's perhaps not worth speculating too much beyond "when will the next release be".

Well, I honestly don’t know.

From my now ancient time as a Till Monkey, our L4L KPI’s as a store were month to month comparison.

But, whilst I’m sure that would be the same for all GW’s sales channels? That doesn’t preclude a higher up L4L for specific game editions.

So….I’m going to err on the side of caution and say “probably both?”. The question mark there is important though!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigkill wrote: Also, these "cycles" change often enough that they rarely go for more than a few iterations, so it's perhaps not worth speculating too much beyond "when will the next release be".

Which raises the question of when we might know. Valrak, who has a pretty reliable record as rumour aggregators go, is already sharing bits and pieces on 11th Ed 40K, seemingly due next year.

The question would be if we’re switching to 4 years between editions, is when that switch was flipped behind the scenes. For the release of the latest AoS? HH 3rd Ed?

That question matters because if we had a solid answer (again, purely on the not entirely safe assumption there has been a change), it might be a couple of years before us Nerds see it.

Well, GW’s L4Ls are still out of wack on a 3 year cycle, where you get regular 3 year 40k spikes. If investors can understand that, they can grok a 4 year plan. They might notice the change, but that’s easily explained for those interested in listening to the explanation.

Well, even a four year cycle is better than a 3 year one.

But even that is not ideal IMHO. For someone like me, ideal would be GW openly allowing and supporting all past editions of all games. Let the customers choose which edition they prefer. Forcing players to a neverending churn is not cool. Miniatures is their prime thing anyways, is it not

I'd be okay leaving the meta grinder games on 3 years and HH and ToW rotating in the third slot every 6 years.

 tauist wrote:
Well, even a four year cycle is better than a 3 year one.

But even that is not ideal IMHO. For someone like me, ideal would be GW openly allowing and supporting all past editions of all games. Let the customers choose which edition they prefer. Forcing players to a neverending churn is not cool. Miniatures is their prime thing anyways, is it not

Miniatures is their official priority, yes. I'd be surprised if their rules / books division isn't raking it in too though.

Miniatures churn is as real now as codex churn though. Look at all these shiny new units we've released, gotta catch 'em all! Oh, by the way, to make room for these new units we've removed a load of older units from the codex.

Of course if GW consumers were more accepting of Legends then model churn would be less of an issue. There's nothing stopping GW removing units from Legends in the future though.

I mean, it should be 5 to 6 years. The editions really don't have time to breathe as is.

The problem I feel is GW makes a good chunk of change everytime a new edition drops. If they sort of expect the money that comes from the new edition coming every 3 years that may be a hard habit to kick.

At the same time they've got more than 3 main line games now. From a purely physics point of view they can't do a new edition every year for all 4 on a 3 year cycle.

The only way would be to double up and I'm sure that they respect that their customers have finite budgets. If they start to double up big releases like that then the sales will drop because wallets won't recharge. Plus one of them would be landing near Christmas and getting muddled up with that too.

Basically it would create a situation where they've too much competing with each other at once and that's just on the release side. Production and design side would also take on even more stress.


A shift to a 4 year cycle for Old World, AoS, 40K and Horus Heresy is the minimum GW would have to do if they want all 4 to have the summer release slot and have big chunky releases.


Even then you've still got Necromunda, LI, Bloodblowl, Underworlds, Warcry (which seems to be going through a prolonged restructuring/refocusing); all kicking around in the background getting chunky and updated releases as well.

rules/books are a sales vehicle for miniatures as GW knows that the miniature sales spike if a book is released together
for that very reason there are no new models without some kind of book following as even those who don't play but just collect and paint follow the books

so switching back to 4 years from the current model is not that easy as it may look because they need books to fill the 3 years and the quality for the gamers to keep them around for 4 years (no like in the past where people already ask for new core rules 2 years in)

in addition, stretching the army books to 4 years might be too long for people to wait to get their new rules, as this was a common complain when Edition lasted longer, and having all books done in 2 years and fill the remaining 2 with campaign books only really works if the rules quality is there for people to stay (the longer an Edition lasts the more likely bad rules push casual players away)

Something different here is that TOW and HH are run by the same department as far as we know, and given the usual corporate competition, I don't think the others would be fine with another department gets 2 main release slots while their profit cycle is moved from 3 to 4 years

like of the 40k guys know they get a spike in sales every 3 years, why should they accept to be pushed to 4 years while another department gets a sales spike every 2 years.


basically unless there is a shift in management and a different company strategy coming up, I don't see it happen

Switching to 4 years doesn't mean you have to wait longer; it means the tail end of the edition just doesn't have any new codex/battletomes in it and actually lets everyone play with their completed books for longer. You just shift from new editions to updated compendiums each year.

That's probably not financially viable. More likely it just means that codexes get released at a slower pace to have content for the last year.

 Overread wrote:
Switching to 4 years doesn't mean you have to wait longer; it means the tail end of the edition just doesn't have any new codex/battletomes in it and actually lets everyone play with their completed books for longer. You just shift from new editions to updated compendiums each year.

and you think a department is accepting to lose a year of sales for the possibility that people can play a year longer, if they are happy enough with the rules?
Why should they leave money on the table for no reason?

Or just have some armies get 2 in an editoin - GW has done that before.

They can only release so many new codex in a period of time and GW knows that leaving armies too long really blunts their sales. If they can get all the codex out in 2 years then they've 2 more years where everyone has an updated set of full rules to use so now GW can

a) Do a campaign series of expansion books with new models scattered in them for the factions

b) Do X.5 codex updates - so an army might get a new Codex in year 1 that comes with 1 new leader model and then in year 3 they get another which comes with 5 totally new kits and a large update.


This way GW keeps the cycle of new printed and cast material going; but at the same time tey don't fall into the trap of old where they had some armies waiting far too long. No one wants to own or play or buy into the army that has to wait 4 years to get their new edition codex just before it all changes. That's not fun; it's not conductive to healthy sales and it means when GW comes back to that army they either invest very little and accept it will sell terribly for another 4 year or so; or they have to over-invest to re-ignite interest.

Worst case in the past was Sisters of Battle who were still rocking and almost entirely metal army with low sales.




Adding another year to the release schedule has a lot of ways GW can work with it so that it doesn't break their income and so that it doesn't break customers.

Also lets not forget the main thrust of this thread is that the 4 year cycle is potentially on the cards because GW already has too much to release in 3 years anyway.

 Overread wrote:

The only way would be to double up and I'm sure that they respect that their customers have finite budgets. If they start to double up big releases like that then the sales will drop because wallets won't recharge. Plus one of them would be landing near Christmas and getting muddled up with that too.

-- looking at their customers as a single bloc of "Games Workshop Model Buyers" seems like a very outdated perspective

-- we can deduce that they want to do more analysis of specific customer groups and the sales breakdown of their IPs, based on the otherwise self-defeating "no models shall cross games" policy

-- fwiw, The Old World released in, like, a January or February, not the summer

Is this something that's been hinted at or just speculation?

Instead of a new Edition every 3 years getting a new Codex every 2 years isn't really any better for playing longer with your army

 kodos wrote:
Instead of a new Edition every 3 years getting a new Codex every 2 years isn't really any better for playing longer with your army

One would presume that codex 2 during and edition would refine rather than redefine and that not every faction would get one. Those released near the end of the 2nd year might well not get a second codex. Which doesn't mean they couldn't get a narrative campaign new model release of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Altruizine wrote:

 Overread wrote:

The only way would be to double up and I'm sure that they respect that their customers have finite budgets. If they start to double up big releases like that then the sales will drop because wallets won't recharge. Plus one of them would be landing near Christmas and getting muddled up with that too.

-- looking at their customers as a single bloc of "Games Workshop Model Buyers" seems like a very outdated perspective

-- we can deduce that they want to do more analysis of specific customer groups and the sales breakdown of their IPs, based on the otherwise self-defeating "no models shall cross games" policy

-- fwiw, The Old World released in, like, a January or February, not the summer

Very true, but at the same time I also mentioned GW's back end and we already know they are straining at max capacity right now.
There's only so much one firm can sell, market and produce in a given timeframe

Even if they separate their lines more and get more specific data back on sales rates and such I still think that trying to squish more big game releases into a single timeslot of 3 years is just asking for eventual trouble and burnout. Their model lines are distinct but in the same market space and the same niche; its not like they are pitching entirely separate product lines to customers.

 Overread wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Instead of a new Edition every 3 years getting a new Codex every 2 years isn't really any better for playing longer with your army

One would presume that codex 2 during and edition would refine rather than redefine and that not every faction would get one. Those released near the end of the 2nd year might well not get a second codex. Which doesn't mean they couldn't get a narrative campaign new model release of course.
market space and the same niche; its not like they are pitching entirely separate product lines to customers.

So exactly like Space Marines now, which get Codex Supplements thst refine the basic book.

GW has done this since 3rd and that not everyone gets a 2nd Codex or a Supplement wasn't really something the community liked or looked forward to.
Specially if you were not playing Space Marine but one of the NPC factions or the specific supplement force

 LunarSol wrote:
Is this something that's been hinted at or just speculation?

Speculation, but not entirely based on wishful thinking.

GW now considers four of their overall offerings Main Games. The info on L4L KPI’s is from my last time as a Till Monkey. So informed some, but not guaranteed. But it’s common business practice, and I don’t really see why GW would stop that, given it was something monitored since at least 2001 on my first Till Monkey stretch.

Hence, the three year turnover doesn’t appear to work as it did anymore.

Yes, a four year cycle seems very likely.

There are now 4 major Warhammer games, each with a huge range of models, and I can't see TOW without a big summer launch for it's 2nd edition. Its product count has already surpassed that of MESBG and shows no signs of slowing down.

Something that does feel like the wind of change, at GW, is the growing trend of the journal format. Its a far more economical format that could mean not only longer support for editions of 40K etc, but renewed support for the other side games such as Warhammer Quest and Blood Bowl.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW now considers four of their overall offerings Main Games.

On what is this based? I read (well, skimmed) the recent Annual Report, where on page 3 they refer to two "primary universes" (fantasy and sci-fi), and then they have four bullet points where they refer to "settings", although the bullet points are titled after the four games that we all probably think of as the big four. It is specifically stated that the settings have "multiple dedicated game systems", however. The term "Main Game" does not occur in the report, although they may well have stated so elsewhere - I hardly read everything GW puts to print.

Interestingly, page 44 (which is about executive remuneration - very boring stuff) does refer to a three-year sales cycle in a somewhat oblique way:

the introduction of a Triennial Share Award which potentially operates every third year, aligned with the core design,
manufacturing and sales cycles of the Group

It essentially states (on page 41) that director performance is evaluated by comparing a given year to the performance of three years prior.

Wasn’t my observation I’m afraid, so I can’t answer that one.

But I reckon it’s from the part you quoted.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Overread wrote:

The only way would be to double up and I'm sure that they respect that their customers have finite budgets. If they start to double up big releases like that then the sales will drop because wallets won't recharge. Plus one of them would be landing near Christmas and getting muddled up with that too.

-- looking at their customers as a single bloc of "Games Workshop Model Buyers" seems like a very outdated perspective

-- we can deduce that they want to do more analysis of specific customer groups and the sales breakdown of their IPs, based on the otherwise self-defeating "no models shall cross games" policy

-- fwiw, The Old World released in, like, a January or February, not the summer

Just a minor disagreement, but I'm really not convinced that we can deduce they want to do more analysis of specific customer groups based on their 'no cross-game models' approach, in many ways it strikes me as the opposite - very much just your second point it seems a drive to keep using simplistic KPI/targets and comparisons across the different games/IPs rather than helping any kind of "understand" function. I've said before, the only sales channel they actually have good data on buying habits for is their own online store and I think if anyone (including GW!) think that's actually representative of their wider customer base, well I suspect that is a deeply flawed assumption to make.

If they were really interested in understanding their customer base and who buys what and for what they have plenty of scope for surveying folks to improve the data they have to work from. But given how much money they seem to make as is, it's probably not surprising that they aren't really bothered to put any effort into doing so - though I do wonder if it would help improve their production forecasting and warehousing challenges if they did...!


More on topic, one thing that we always debate when talking about things like this is how many people actually play the games vs just "collect", in many ways isn't it reasonable to infer that the pretty clear edition "bump" in sales is indicative that a large proportion of their customers play (or at least intend to!)...? Otherwise regular new model releases vs new game edition model releases would be more consistent (accounting for factors like faction popularity, etc) and undermine the purpose of a triennial target approach? I've always found odd the assertion that most of their customers don't play, when you stack it up against the GW rules cycle.

On the data available to GW point there?

It’s more than their web store.

Whether your FLGS buys through a middle man wholesaler, GW remain the sole manufacturer and point of production distributor.

They’ll know exactly of how many of a given kit they’ve produced, how many they’ve sold, and which channel it sold through.

Whilst it’s true they won’t have direct data of how a FLGS went about selling the stock they’d bought, they can still make solid inferences by what’s commonly reordered, what otherwise stock items were never reordered and that.

The idea of edition churn is anathema to me. Therefore, 3 years or 4 years is just changing the bun on a turd sandwich.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the data available to GW point there?

It’s more than their web store.

Whether your FLGS buys through a middle man wholesaler, GW remain the sole manufacturer and point of production distributor.

They’ll know exactly of how many of a given kit they’ve produced, how many they’ve sold, and which channel it sold through.

Whilst it’s true they won’t have direct data of how a FLGS went about selling the stock they’d bought, they can still make solid inferences by what’s commonly reordered, what otherwise stock items were never reordered and that.

Obviously! My point is to make the distinction between product data and customer data, apologies if that wasn't clear enough. They obviously have plenty of data on what is sold across all their channels, but outside of their own webstore basically nothing on who is buying it. That's fine if all you want is a pretty basic idea of what sells well and what doesn't, but that's only part of the story and gives you very little about consumer behaviour (e.g. the why stuff sells). Again, clearly they make enough money that you can undoubtedly argue their assumptions (vs data) they base their decisions off of are solid, but as ever correlation =/= causation...! As a little illustration, there's a reason supermarkets and others have their various reward/points cards, etc and the core purpose of those is almost entirely about gathering customer data - GW doesn't have the competitive pressures of a Tesco, et al so understandably isn't interested in going that far, but thought it might be a helpful way of highlighting the kinds of data I'm referring to which are distinct from simply what is going on and off the shelves.

To take a really simple example; folks often quote the average retention of a GW customer as being for quite a short period of time (e.g. those of us who inhabit these forums are a distinct outlier - I will note that part is undoubtedly correct!). But one has to ask what this idea is based on - and I'm not suggesting those who repeat these things are doing so in bad faith, just that the data to support that idea simply doesn't actually exist - even for GW. Again, I'm not doubting that GW itself thinks that this is correct, but fundamentally they are making an assumption rather than basing it on data. Why do I say that? Well, again, the only hard data they have on customer retention is from their own webstore, which I can't imagine is a reliable indicator given the relatively small fraction of overall sales it represents and that it seems reasonable to assume the longer people are playing/collecting for, the more likely they are to come across FLGS/online discount retailers and change their buying habits to use those. Again, overall the assumption about retention is not unreasonable given what we know of human behaviour in general but I just trying to highlight that it is an assumption not a fact, even for GW themselves. Unless anyone can point out when GW have actually collected proper customer data (not stock data!) at any scale, because I'm not aware they ever have done?

Edit: And to link it more directly to the topic, outside of their own webstore sales, GW has no real idea who the buyers of a new edition "launch"/starter box are. How many of the Saturnine boxes were sold to people brand new and getting into the HH game vs how many were people already playing 2nd edition - we've no idea and the reality is that neither does GW! Understanding of that is undoubtedly further complicated by the whales buying multiples of the box (potentially across multiple channels too). And that does seem a little problematic for them to make effective decision making on edition churn.

I honestly don't know, but is the Edition Churn also disliked by the D&D crowd?

(They are the only other group that I can find that seem to have a sparkly new edition every time I visit the FLGS)

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I honestly don't know, but is the Edition Churn also disliked by the D&D crowd?

(They are the only other group that I can find that seem to have a sparkly new edition every time I visit the FLGS)

While some D&D players get annoyed with edition changes and prefer old editions (which is easier to do when you play with closed groups), the comparison with GW is not very good - the D&D edition cycle seems to be about ten years, with 3.5 a bit of an outlier.