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.

kaotkbliss wrote:
I always thought GW might have better launch sales if they made multiple versions of the starter set.

Each version would showcase 2 different armies. but all other contents still the same.

They would just take a percentage of their planned production run based on how well the 2 armies in the box have sold in the past.

For example, they have a planned production run of 100,000 starters.

They could release 50,000 SM vs Orks,
20,000 guard vs tyranid
20,000 tau vs necron
10,000 squat vs chaos

Just as a quick off-the-top-of-my-head example. There are a lot of players who skip the box set because they can't use the models. They already produce the sprues for individual box sets, so the only extra production cost is that of the cardboard box it's all packaged in. Which in the greater scheme of manufacturing, is basically pennies. And those people who go, I would have bought the starter set, but didn't care for the armies, now have an option and are more likely to pick up a starter.

I dunno. Maybe?

Well since they've grown into a multi-billion $ international company and sit somewhere about #70 on the British stock rankings....
I think its safe to say that they know their business better than you do.

ccs wrote:


Well since they've grown into a multi-billion $ international company and sit somewhere about #70 on the British stock rankings....
I think its safe to say that they know their business better than you do.

Wow. That was uncalled for.

I never said I was an expert. Nor have I ever said I know more about it than GW.

It was simply an idea that more options might appeal to more players than no option.

kaotkbliss wrote:

ccs wrote:


Well since they've grown into a multi-billion $ international company and sit somewhere about #70 on the British stock rankings....
I think its safe to say that they know their business better than you do.

Wow. That was uncalled for.

I never said I was an expert. Nor have I ever said I know more about it than GW.

It was simply an idea that more options might appeal to more players than no option.

I think the issue CCS is highlighting is that launch boxes represent a significant investment in time and resources for GW and simplifying the offering to a single starter set has lots of advantages that far outweigh any possible advantages of doing it the way you suggest. They're basically guaranteed to sell out of the Armageddon box (though this time around it might be a little less attractive than the last few). If they produced multiple starter boxes you have to make sure you produce the right proportions of boxes of each combination as you don't want stock sitting in warehouses because you overestimated the popularity of the Tau/Necron combo. Then there's the issue of local stores now having to order different combos of boxes to cover their player base, which makes life difficult for them compared to "just give me 50 of the new starter set boxes". GW also use these sets to produce new models for the two starter armies. Expecting the same for various different starter boxes in unrealistic, which further diminishes the attractiveness of the box.

You're basically asking for GW to move away from a strategy that has worked for literal decades, to take a risk on a different approach that is more resource heavy and logistically complex. If you think those logistics are "basically pennies" in cost, you are sorely mistaken.

I think that measuring the success GW starter box by whether it sells out is skewed quite badly by the fact that they make it comparatively good value.

If you want the units in the box, it's cheaper to buy the box than the units.

If you want half the units, it's also cheaper to buy the box and then sell half than it is to buy the units you want.

Many people, especially in the high-cost world of warhammer, will opt for the most efficient methods of acquiring models. I remember Assault on Black Reach, where people were buying boxes to break them and making the money back and then some, whilst the people buying were still getting models for less than the normal kits.

However, it would be telling if they did bring out a kit without space marines and the sales tanked. I highly, highly doubt that would happen, though.

Slipspace wrote:
I think the issue CCS is highlighting is that launch boxes represent a significant investment in time and resources for GW and simplifying the offering to a single starter set has lots of advantages that far outweigh any possible advantages of doing it the way you suggest. They're basically guaranteed to sell out of the Armageddon box (though this time around it might be a little less attractive than the last few). If they produced multiple starter boxes you have to make sure you produce the right proportions of boxes of each combination as you don't want stock sitting in warehouses because you overestimated the popularity of the Tau/Necron combo. Then there's the issue of local stores now having to order different combos of boxes to cover their player base, which makes life difficult for them compared to "just give me 50 of the new starter set boxes". GW also use these sets to produce new models for the two starter armies. Expecting the same for various different starter boxes in unrealistic, which further diminishes the attractiveness of the box.

You're basically asking for GW to move away from a strategy that has worked for literal decades, to take a risk on a different approach that is more resource heavy and logistically complex. If you think those logistics are "basically pennies" in cost, you are sorely mistaken.

I mean, yeah there's a lot of variables and takes more planning than just going "we're doing this" and it being done.
But part of that would be on the individual stores knowing what sells in their area and what doesn't (as they should already know if they are doing proper inventory)

I'm also not saying GW needs to do this or they will fail. Obviously I didn't sit down and mock up a business plan for something like this to actually work and be profitable. It was simply hearing many people saying "I would have bought the box set, but I'm gonna pass because I don't need\can't use\whatever excuse the included models" Add to that personal feelings of "If they had this option, I would be more likely to purchase x box set." or even start up a new army.

So the fundamentals, breaking it down to simplest form:
Do I think it would boost sales? yes.
Do I think it would be a simple task? definitely not.

But I didn't\don't think it would ever happen, so there was no reason for me to go into every detail figuring how to make each part work. “Everything begins with an idea.” -Earl Nightingale

P.S. The "basically pennies" comment only applied to the physical cardboard box design and printing that would house the starter sets, not anything else involved in doing something like this.

 some bloke wrote:
Showing my age here, and there may be some lore developments which I have missed, but why on terra is this new box set, named "Armageddon", the iconic site of the battles between Commissar Yarrick of the Imperial Guard and Ghazkull's Orks, featuring Orks and... space marines?

I know that Space Marines are paint-by-numbers posterchildren of 40k, but when did they become the go-to imperial faction one considers when thinking of Armageddon? Am I missing some lore that makes this make sense, or is it just because GW has some weird thing where every starter set must have people buy space marines?

because there is no justice in this world, heh.

On the subject of multiple multi-faction launch boxes, another downside is splitting the hype and discussion. Currently, we are in the marketer's ideal scenario where everyone here is discussing The Product. Some of us may not get it for various reasons, but we are all working to build interest and direct people on the periphery of this hobby to check it out. Splitting the boxes would result in some of the boxes getting hype but not having as much availability as the current box, and others being passed over and forgotten with the added risk of one or more of the sets being considered so much worse that they will not sell. The costs of designing full push-fit ranges would be comparable between all of the boxes but splitting them just means that each of those investments sees fewer returns.

Another problem is that this would split the new player experience for getting into Warhammer. Currently, new players that know nothing can be directed to The starter set that contains two factions and everything they need to play. Splitting this just throws in another layer of confusion and choice paralysis as they are confronted with discussion as to which box has the most variety or the best balance. Keeping it simple with generic poster boys vs bad guy of the edition is good for beginners.

All that said, 12th edition should be Sisters of Battle against Genestealer Cults for no other reason than I need to expand my armies and I want to do it cheap.