The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Elbows]

You're not "forcing" retailers to do anything if you have a retail agreement and they sign it.  Now if GW signed a normal retail agreement with a store, disagreed with their pricing and then mysteriously started having supply issues for that store, or something more shady?  Perhaps.  However, a signed and agreed upon retail arrangement can essentially get you out of anything.

[FramFramson]

http://newsthump.com/2017/08/08/games-workshop-sued-for-62-5m-or-one-warhammer-starter-set/

[Lovejoy]

EDIT: Found something that shows it's definitely illegal

I'm not so sure; what they're doing is minimum resale price maintenance; often referred to as vertical price fixing. As you say, it was classed as illegal in 1911, but in 1997 State Oil Co. v. Khan led to the US Supreme Court deciding that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

It's one of the few bits in the lawsuit that might require actual court ruling, but I still reckon GW are on the right side of that one.


In other news... GW have a special mini to celebrate 30 years of 40K... although I can't really see what's special about it, TBH. Looks pretty much like a regular Primaris to me.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/07/warhammer-40000-turns-30-and-theres-a-new-model-to-celebrate/

[Andrew Rae]

He's got a reeeeally long bit of loo roll?

Left foot looks weird. Like they forgot to move the upper part. Oops.

[Shamash-Bel]

You're not "forcing" retailers to do anything if you have a retail agreement and they sign it.  Now if GW signed a normal retail agreement with a store, disagreed with their pricing and then mysteriously started having supply issues for that store, or something more shady?  Perhaps.  However, a signed and agreed upon retail arrangement can essentially get you out of anything.

The "retail arrangement" is (or was) illegal. It's antitrust stuff.

I'm not so sure; what they're doing is minimum resale price maintenance; often referred to as vertical price fixing. As you say, it was classed as illegal in 1911, but in 1997 State Oil Co. v. Khan led to the US Supreme Court deciding that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

It's one of the few bits in the lawsuit that might require actual court ruling, but I still reckon GW are on the right side of that one.

The Khan thing isn't quite the thing in this case, but it's Leegin that's the key in this case:

Vertical price-fixing by agreement was considered per se illegal in the U.S. until a pair of modern-day Supreme Court cases spaced ten years apart established the current rule that all forms of resale price setting — maximum, minimum, or exact — are judged under federal law by the rule of reason. The 1997 decision in Khan overturned a 29-year old case to declare that the rule of reason applies to maximum price agreements, while the far more controversial Leegin decision in 2007 jettisoned a 96-year old precedent by extending Khan to minimum prices (and the analytically equivalent exact prices). Likely because maximum prices have the effect of holding down costs, while minimum or exact prices prop them up, bills have been introduced both in Congress and at the state level to legislatively overturn Leegin by restoring the per se rule to minimum resale price agreements, but, so far, only Maryland's efforts have been enacted into law. While application of the rule of reason in this context is too new to assess its effect and the empirical evidence supporting the consumer welfare arguments in favor of going back to the per se rule is lacking, the emotion is not, increasing the odds that Congress will turn back the clock, other states will join Maryland, or both.

However, regardless whether Leegin survives, none of the legislative efforts aimed at minimum resale price agreements affect the Supreme Court's 1919 ruling in Colgate that setting maximum, minimum or exact resale prices without an agreement (that is, unilaterally) is not illegal price-fixing prohibited under the Sherman Act. As a result, a supplier may announce a price at which its product must be resold (that is, establish a ceiling, floor, or exact price policy) and refuse to sell to any reseller that does not comply, as long as there is no agreement between the supplier and its reseller on resale price levels. Even when resellers follow the supplier's resale price policy, there is no unlawful agreement. With this latitude, many manufacturers of desirable branded products have successfully discouraged the discounting of their products in such diverse industries as consumer electronics, furniture, appliances, sporting goods, tires, luggage, handbags, videos, agricultural supplies, electronic test equipment, and automotive accessories and replacement parts.

God knows what'll happen, though. It'll be an actual groundbreaker.

[Duke Donald]

http://newsthump.com/2017/08/08/games-workshop-sued-for-62-5m-or-one-warhammer-starter-set/

That made me laugh!

[Andrew May]

He's got a reeeeally long bit of loo roll?

Left foot looks weird. Like they forgot to move the upper part. Oops.

Came here to post that pic, super underwhelming.

I know they've been painting rapid prototypes for years but there's some pretty egregious print lines visible on the big image!

[beefcake]

Yeah, I just noticed those print lines too. You think they would have done something about that. A little photoshop goes a long way. Hopefully they will clean up the masters before producing them.

[Andrew May]

Yeah, I just noticed those print lines too. You think they would have done something about that. A little photoshop goes a long way. Hopefully they will clean up the masters before producing them.

They don't need to clean up any masters as the tools are cut straight from digital, the print is used to get painted shots sorted well ahead of production.

[zemjw]

I have the original space marine, so I was a bit miffed that I missed the recent re-release of it.

This one, not so much

[beefcake]

They don't need to clean up any masters as the tools are cut straight from digital, the print is used to get painted shots sorted well ahead of production.

Interesting. Do they go straight to the electro-eroding or whatever it is called, based upon it digitally?

[Andrew May]

it might also be worth noting that unmagnified they would be all but invisible.

I know, it's ridiculous how good the prints are really, I've handled lots of high quality prints so they just jumped out at me. "Egregious" was fairly hyperbolic tbh. 

[Andrew May]

Interesting. Do they go straight to the electro-eroding or whatever it is called, based upon it digitally?

I don't know what CAM process they use specifically I'm afraid.

[Andrew May]

Interesting times, better learn a new trade fast!

[Elbows]

You brought up the point yourself though - an artistic background helps.  I see a LOAD of digitally designed stuff where the end product is a competently modeled piece...of terrible artistic design.  I think there is a huge portion of the digital sculpting community (amateurs and professional) with very little artistic background or capability.

A good sculptor is a good sculptor regardless of medium...and I think many companies fall extremely short/flat in that department.