Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Barkanaut

When will GW expand the smaller armies?

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

If they want to keep selling mini's, expanding the ranges with small amounts of sets does make a lot of sense.

Of course it does but not at this pace (regarding battletomes). End of 2020 or 2021 is the fastest I can think of an update to existing 2.0 factions. In my opinion there are factions that already should have had 2nd waves but got just a battletome instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Of course it does but not at this pace (regarding battletomes). End of 2020 or 2021 is the fastest I can think of an update to existing 2.0 factions. In my opinion there are factions that already should have had 2nd waves but got just a battletome instead. 

It is a possibility, but the schedule for 2020 would be quite empty without a few model releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

It is a possibility, but the schedule for 2020 would be quite empty without a few model releases.

If those four new armies Whitefang mentioned are true than it's a good year already. As always there will be new ghb, some kinda new endless spells release, Kharadron Overlords, Tzeentch and Seraphon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Aryann said:

If those four new armies Whitefang mentioned are true than it's a good year already. As always there will be new ghb, some kinda new endless spells release, Kharadron Overlords, Tzeentch and Seraphon. 

The new armies are probably not my thing, as I don't really like the design language of every AoS army except KO. But that's quite a lot. We'll have to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aryann said:

I think some of you have unrealistic expectations, Like anticipating GW to release a second wave of Kharadrons or Ironjawz in 2020 just when they've received (or even not) a new battletome. That would be really negative trend to reduce battletomes' lifespan to under 1 year. 3 years seem like a good compromise between imposed expenditure and being up to meta (with some FAQs and GHB in between).

Presumably if there was a a wave of releases within a year of the battletome coming out those rules would be included in the battletome; even if the models wouldn't actually be out for a number of months. This is (sort of) what happened with the Sisters of Battle for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we now had a few White Dwarf exclusive for example the recent Night haunt one. 

There's a possibility other Battletomes could have additional rules in future without a full update. 

For example endless spells and terrain for IJs or even Beast Grave Warband can add new options. 

A few of the recent ones haven't been to bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The smaller factions is an interesting concept.

For starters, its likely that GW are chasing the profits: releasing new, small factions that haven't been seen before in one hit on a regular basis might be seen as more profitable then the old business model where players already had a space marines army from two decades ago and -might- buy a new kit with each edition.

On the other hand, AoS is a progressive setting: smaller "once off" faction sku's are easier to remove in the narrative  if the sales aren't going their way. GW wouldn't be the first company to have this approach.

For example: Its hinted in the Skaven Battletome that Clan Skyre, whose model range is 80% failcast, are sizing up with Clan Pestilens for a Skaven civil war of Realms shaking proportions. GW could greenlight this to occur and Skyre loses. Clan Skyre could then be wiped from sales overnight and their units delegated to non matched-play status with something new in the Skaven narrative to take its place. Sure, you'll have some unhappy Skyre players, particularly the meta-chasers, but welcome to progressive storylines mixed with Capitalism.

Edited by Malios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Malios said:

The smaller factions is an interesting concept.

For starters, its likely that GW are chasing the profits: releasing new, small factions that haven't been seen before in one hit on a regular basis might be seen as more profitable then the old business model where players already had a space marines army from two decades ago and -might- buy a new kit with each edition.

On the other hand, AoS is a progressive setting: smaller "once off" faction sku's are easier to remove in the narrative  if the sales aren't going their way. GW wouldn't be the first company to have this approach.

For example: Its hinted in the Skaven Battletome that Clan Skyre, whose model range is 80% failcast, are sizing up with Clan Pestilens for a Skaven civil war of Realms shaking proportions. GW could greenlight this to occur and Skyre loses. Clan Skyre could then be wiped from sales overnight with something else to take its place.

Regularely phasing out armies would be a surefire way to lose me. I take a long time making stuff, if I'm not sure whether I can use it when I start playing, why bother with the game at all?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A fair point: I fully understand where you're coming from. I don't blame you for that opinion because I was much the same.

If you broaden your hobby scope a bit and start looking at other companies who use progressive storylines, you realise that its actually the norm to discontinue lines: GW (and surprisingly Privateer Press) seem to be the exception and I put that down to the GW systems having a "static" setting for a very long time. Card gaming systems "retire" seasons all the time which Warhammer Underworlds is trying to emulate. Corvus Belli, who as a company have a self-imposed SKU limit, discontinue entire Infinity factions so they can release new kits and factions to match narrative developments. (Corvus Belli still provide rules and some support for discontinued factions however and provide plenty of notice before they do it: its not a shock-horror surprise and kick in the balls like when GW does it.)

Watching the decision to retire seasons in Warhammer Underworlds, as well as the selection of kits that went into Cities of Sigmar's battletome and the subsequent retirement of kits that didn't make the cut makes me believe that GW are going that way as a business. GW has in the past also discontinued entire lines (dogs of war, Squats, and almost sisters of battle) and entire gaming systems (GorkaMorka, Battlefleet Gothic etc.) so they are more then capable of doing it.

It sounds bad when I say "don't get too attached to your models," because it is when you're paying GW pricing to watch your investment get discontinued. But, at the same time, companies have limited SKUs and production space, including GW: eventually you need to discontinue something for something new to come around, particularly if it will be more profitable then the items being discontinued. A progressive narrative is a tool to do that. Smaller factions are easier to get rid of then larger ones.

[Edit] Just as we saw the narrative progress with the release of the warrior chambers (Conquer back territories in the Realmgate Wars), the extremis chamber (in response to Archaon and the Varanguard) and then the Sacrosanct Chamber (in response to the Necroquake and the Soul Wars), I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see the opposite occur and Stormcast chambers get discontinued because their sales are bad and they no longer serve a narrative use.

Edited by Malios
Extra paragraph or two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m guessing thos year will see a couple of Bonereapers sized totally new army releases and maybe 1 Slaanesh sized update for an existing force but existing armies mainly getting new reinforcements through some mix of Underworlds warbands, heroes in more battleboxes, possibly something War ru related but then most likely, in my totally uninformed opinion, a kind of multi-book Psychic Awakening style campaign running late this year into next with 1 or 2 new key units released alongside each book that also includes minor rules refreshes for older 2.0 factions.

you could easily imagine something, for example, like a book called ‘The Dead Sea’ which pitches Idoneth against Nighthaunt and ties that in to the release of the ‘missing’ faction spells/terrain (respectively) a maybe new hero or unit for both with rules to give them a boost to match later 2.0 tomes.

That and them really using Tome Celestial in White Dwarf to Chuck some small boons to ailing factions.

Edited by JPjr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Malios said:

Clan Skryre could then be wiped from sales overnight

You just put the fear of god into me, and for what?!?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wouldn't fear it: it won't happen for some time, or most likely won't happen at all.

Its more to gain the acceptance now before it becomes a shock that GW is a company out to make profits: eventually a progressive narrative product has to progress which means something eventually has to be discontinued.

[Edit] Skaven are pretty safe, being solely GW IP. Clan Skyre was just an example (and what an example!) of what could happen when a progressive storyline mixes with marketing and profits.

Edited by Malios
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Malios said:

A fair point: I fully understand where you're coming from. I don't blame you for that opinion because I was much the same.

If you broaden your hobby scope a bit and start looking at other companies who use progressive storylines, you realise that its actually the norm to discontinue lines: GW (and surprisingly Privateer Press) seem to be the exception and I put that down to the GW systems having a "static" setting for a very long time. Card gaming systems "retire" seasons all the time which Warhammer Underworlds is trying to emulate. Corvus Belli, who as a company have a self-imposed SKU limit, discontinue entire Infinity factions so they can release new kits and factions to match narrative developments. (Corvus Belli still provide rules and some support for discontinued factions however and provide plenty of notice before they do it: its not a shock-horror surprise and kick in the balls like when GW does it.)

Watching the decision to retire seasons in Warhammer Underworlds, as well as the selection of kits that went into Cities of Sigmar's battletome and the subsequent retirement of kits that didn't make the cut makes me believe that GW are going that way as a business. GW has in the past also discontinued entire lines (dogs of war, Squats, and almost sisters of battle) and entire gaming systems (GorkaMorka, Battlefleet Gothic etc.) so they are more then capable of doing it.

It sounds bad when I say "don't get too attached to your models," because it is when you're paying GW pricing to watch your investment get discontinued. But, at the same time, companies have limited SKUs and production space, including GW: eventually you need to discontinue something for something new to come around, particularly if it will be more profitable then the items being discontinued. A progressive narrative is a tool to do that. Smaller factions are easier to get rid of then larger ones.

[Edit] Just as we saw the narrative progress with the release of the warrior chambers (Conquer back territories in the Realmgate Wars), the extremis chamber (in response to Archaon and the Varanguard) and then the Sacrosanct Chamber (in response to the Necroquake and the Soul Wars), I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see the opposite occur and Stormcast chambers get discontinued because their sales are bad and they no longer serve a narrative use.

I do see some of it, and honestly, I prefer building and painting to playing, but I still want my models to have a purpose in the game.

Maybe I should just ditch the game part, and just build and paint stuff that I like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back when the first rumours of AoS started coming out ('Bubbles' that we now know to be Realms etc), there was talk that GW's strategy going forward would be regular, smaller army releases that would be discontinued after a few years in an attempt to get people to keep picking up and starting new armies, rather than focusing on one project for-potentially-ever.  Things like the smaller Fyreslayer release certainly hearken to that.

Now, is that still their strategy? I doubt it, but I think we'll need a few more years to see what happens and if certain lines start disappearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Its an alien concept for warhammer players to have armies or product lines "retired," particularly those players who've had their armies for decades and never needed to replace them.

At GW pricing its also a scary concept: a sizeable sectorial army for Infinity or a new army for ASOIAF may only set you back by $200 - $300 AUD retail (if not bought second hand), which most warhammer player pay just to fill their battleline units.

But its also the norm of the industry. It shouldn't deter us from the hobby knowing that it will happen: you all build armies knowing that the General's handbook shakes things up annually after all. If anything, it gives a greater appreciation to enjoy it while it lasts.

Its too soon to say that's GW's market strategy anyway. If it does happen however, atleast you'll be ready for it.

Edited by Malios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a guess but I don't think there will be a wave 2 any time soon for KO, IDK, IJ, Slyvaneth etc.

Reason being they still need to replace a lot of finecast and old model kits for Skaven, Seraphon etc.

They are also still creating brand new armies like the pointy aelves.

Finally, probably the biggest reason, is that GW obviously need to put 90% of their production capacity towards Primaris Space Marines at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 123lac said:

This is just a guess but I don't think there will be a wave 2 any time soon for KO, IDK, IJ, Slyvaneth etc.

Reason being they still need to replace a lot of finecast and old model kits for Skaven, Seraphon etc.

They are also still creating brand new armies like the pointy aelves.

Finally, probably the biggest reason, is that GW obviously need to put 90% of their production capacity towards Primaris Space Marines at all times.

i don't feel like GW is in any urgency or prioritizing to replace all the resin models (metal maybe), it going to happen eventually but in a larger time frame.

in 40k it definitely going to take awhile with how slowly they start replacing their character models and Eldar units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2019 at 11:09 PM, Aegisgrimm said:

Yeah, I always felt that Fyreslayers needed some options that weren't just "more Fyreslayers".  It always seemed to be cool to me if they got some sort of rune/stone golems the size of Ogors or trolls.

To add flavor to my skirmish games I had been thinking of painting up a pair of Runewars Rune Golems to use with Kurnoth stats, or even just some repainted Sylvaneth as charred wood.

I would love a Fyreslayer equivalent of gore-gruntas; make them an elite option, slightly more speed than the foot version but less than the magmadroths. That way we can spread the power of the units out a little, instead of relying entirely on one unit to carry the army, and they would absolutely suit the theme and style of the fyreslayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 10:04 AM, Malios said:

Card gaming systems "retire" seasons all the time which Warhammer Underworlds is trying to emulate

This is of course anecdotal until GW shows us numbers. But here underworlds was kinda killed by beastgrave. The turnaround was too fast. I think GW underestimated how long people take to collect a season and/or how invested they are into their warbands. 
 

I think applying that principle of retiring models fast like card games do is very risky. The time investment is so much bigger than any card game or even skirmish games. And super practical, if you are the biggest due to your model first policy... why give those models a shorter half life? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Kramer said:

This is of course anecdotal until GW shows us numbers. But here underworlds was kinda killed by beastgrave. The turnaround was too fast. I think GW underestimated how long people take to collect a season and/or how invested they are into their warbands. 
 

I think applying that principle of retiring models fast like card games do is very risky. The time investment is so much bigger than any card game or even skirmish games. And super practical, if you are the biggest due to your model first policy... why give those models a shorter half life? 

 

I agree with all of your raised points.

The decision to retire seasons in Beastgrave led to me giving up on Warhammer Underworlds myself because of exactly what you've explained. Sure, you can play "legacy" games of Warhammer Underworlds but thats like telling a Bretonnian player "sure, you can play Open Play in AoS." Its a shame because Warhammer Underworlds was great and Beastgrave had some good changes from Nightvault to shake the game up.

But, not to get distracted on a tangent topic.

Its one thing to observe and accept the business practice, and another thing to like it. "New GW" may be more open and engaging then "2000s GW" but their business practices are the same old toxic habits.

As the old saying goes, which Kramer touched on without actually saying it: vote with your wallets. If you don't like it, don't buy it and let sales figures do the talking.

Edited by Malios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Indeed, the models are still valid.

Heck a lot of this conversation is covered under Warhammer Legends:

"Every Citadel miniature is great, a unique piece of the ever-evolving narrative of Warhammer. It is, then, an unfortunate truth that we can’t continue to sell and support every model we’ve ever made, indefinitely. As we make new models, and new books to explore their background and rules, we have to stop producing and featuring some older models. But just like many of you, we still treasure our collections of older Citadel miniatures, and we still want to be able to use them in games and forge glorious narratives on the tabletop! This is where Warhammer Legends comes in. Warhammer Legends is a great home for these miniatures, giving us somewhere to publish rules to allow you to keep playing with your older miniatures."

So they don't lightly consider tossing stuff away even if it is obsolete and still try to give players a reason for using them.

That they give such lengthy time before it happens and ties into the evolving narratives is a good enough salve for me.

 

Edited by Baron Klatz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While new armies are cool I think there is a danger is releasing a bunch this year after updating all the armies so quickly. I'm flooded in projects right now and would be very hesitant to pick up an entirely new army. A new plastic Fatemaster or some new Maneaters would be an auto-buy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...