The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Hobgoblin]

In fact, when Realms of Chaos came out it was practically encouraged, and the Warhammer Siege supplement has explicit rules for combining "standard" or 40K troops with "primitive" or fantasy Armies.

Yeah - these marvellous images (purloined, in this case, from the givemlead blog) fired many a young imagination!





I recall that we were fond of lizardmen as 'primitives'; they were so tough (T4 and W2) that they were more likely to get into melee than most other fantasy types.

A point that Rick Priestley has made in some recent interviews is that he (and Bryan Ansell and Richard Halliwell) were into "opening the door" with background and inspiration, leaving plenty of room for players to fill things in with their own imaginations. Later editions, he argues, have tended to "close the door" with too much detail.

It's an excellent point, I think, and one that you see in other games too (compare the latest edition of RuneQuest with the classic second edition, for example). The original 40K rulebook is wild and wacky and freewheeling, with endless ideas for scenarios and settings. The warband generators are a great, imagination-firing route to creating interesting and unusual warbands, even if you just pick and mix and pay the points rather than rolling. Gretchins with power axes? Slann with vehicles they treat as sentient individuals? Space marines with shuriken catapults? It's all there!

[Elbows]

I think we even discussed that in this thread recently.  Corporatized GW has a miserable habit of ruining all the suspense/mystery/open-ended stuff they established in their earlier days.

I think that's about as bad as their insistence on tying every race/faction together, etc.  Necrons are probably the worst example of this.  Unknown scary skelebots...who now are intrinsically tied to every other race through distant history, etc.

It very much reads as 'quick we need to sell something, scrape through an old White Dwarf and find a mystery we can solve for this reveal...'.

[Terry Deathstrike]

The 10th edition of 40k is now halfway through it's 3 year life span.

Says it all really

[Elbows]

Amusingly there are rumblings in the Horus Heresy community that the game may have been successful enough to join the dreaded 3-year cycle...

[Sturgkh]

Amusingly there are rumblings in the Horus Heresy community that the game may have been successful enough to join the dreaded 3-year cycle...

So...GW has basically confirmed that without confirming that.

If you dig up GW's financial statement from around when Horus Heresy's 2nd ed was launched (off the top of my head, I can't recall if it was the six month or end of year statement from that time period), GW told its investors that 30k was now a core game alongside 40k and AoS.

Recent history also shows this:
2024: AoS 4th
2023: 40k 10th
2022: 30k 2nd
2021: AoS 3rd
2020: 40k 9th

What wasn't explicitly said, but is fairly obvious, is the following:

• GW has a problem: 'normal' stock investors expect constantly improving profits - GW's profits more or less vary based on whether the financial year involved a new 40k edition or not (although they did finally admit to this in one of their financial letters from this past year)
• GW has come up with two "solutions" to this problem

The first is to have three games on three year edition cycles - this means every year has a baked in new edition launch of some sort to try and spike sales and profits.

The second, connected to the first, is that GW is manipulating the fact that its financial year ends in June. It manipulates this by using the current financial year standings to determine when that calendar year's edition launch falls - as part of the current financial year (IE June or before) or as part of next year's (IE July or later).

For example, if the cycle holds true, next year should be a 30k launch. Because 2024 was AoS 4.0, the (continued) sales of that edition will be one of the major factors in overall sales and profits for the 2024-2025 financial year. By January or February, GW will be able to assess if AoS 4.0 has exceeded, met, or failed expectations through its first six months of release and its first holiday period.

Historically, AoS isn't a major performer. It's why GW this year also used its other sales tactic of supporting non-40k years by releasing new editions or major supplements of its secondary games. In this case, a new edition of Kill Team. So between AoS 4.0 and the new KT, GW will have a rough idea in Jan/Feb of how this financial year is going to look. If it looks good, they can hold off 30k v3 until July or later to 'save' its sales impacts for the 2025-2026 financial year. If it doesn't look good, they can pull 30k into this current financial year with a June or even May release so that the first month(s) sales can be counted on the 2024-2025 financial year instead.

In other words, you can indirectly read the tea leaves of how GW is doing overall, and how its main games are doing, based on the release schedules as they map to the July to June financial years. A June or earlier release of a core game means the last year core game undersold, a July or later release means the previous year core game met/exceeded expectations. Struggling core games get their sales masked with major secondary releases for Necromunda, Kill Team, Warcry, Epic, etc.

One (potential) complication will be The Old World. I've no idea what the total sales are or fit into the grand scheme, only that in the last financial letter GW indicated that it exceeded expectations (by exactly how much or if it exceeded strong/optimistic expectations or if it barely cleared a very low bar, I've no idea). In its investor statements, it's also framed TOW as essentially being AoS' Horus Heresy - IE a separate but linked property that can feed/synergize off of the other property's popularity and sales.

If TOW is performing well enough to be 'promoted' like 30k was with 2nd edition, GW could theoretically move to a four core game / four year cycle. That seems unlikely, if for no other reason that nothing matches what a 40k edition launch does for their bottom line, and a four year cycle simply means more years between the cash cow that a 40k edition release is. As such, TOW is probably better suited to the aforementioned use of secondary games to salvage underperforming core edition launches.

So for now, we're likely seeing 30k 3rd in 2025, 40k 11th in 2026, and AoS 5th in 2027.

[HerbertTarkel]

If The Old World becomes a core game … it would mean Sigmar (rightfully) failed.

Good insight into the financials and forecasting.

Heresy being so huge is, honestly, a bit surprising. Except… the market for GW might not be Little Billy, anymore - maybe it’s me, the nostalgia gamer. The one who wants Heresy, and Old World.


And if that’s the case, they NEED to kill the FOMO made to order crap. Seriously.

[Elbows]

Yep, and that's the issue I get from a lot of the podcasts I listen to.  While I don't play any GW games anymore, I enjoy podcasts about the Horus Heresy and the Old World (well, proper Warhammer Fantasy).

Both of these subsets were originally very different from the common 40K or AoS style player.  There is a reason why HH existed with a lot of fan-made content for something like 10 years when the original version was more or less ignored (one book a year, etc.).  Huge narrative events, a very dedicated fan base, a lot of fan-made stuff like Centurion mode, etc.  The hobby level is easily 3-4x higher than the average 40K hobby level, etc.  The players were generally older and much more dedicated to their armies, etc.

The same can more or less be said about the classical Warhammer Fantasy players.  Even back in the 1990's, the average fantasy player was older (and most kids couldn't afford even one regiment of 30 metal minis!).  Warhammer Fantasy maintained a strong player base, even when killed off...though they do split themselves between various editions, etc.  People never stopped playing the game, and similarly the hobby level and dedication seems much higher.

While GW is going to gain a bunch of 'new' HH players and Old World players, the established player bases aren't the typical binge-buying/FOMO-driven crowd.  One of the Warhammer Fantasy podcasts I listened to actually quit doing their podcast because they were disappointed in the Old World and the way GW is handling it (and likely how they'll handle it going forward).  Some of the HH podcasts have closed shop or taken breaks as well.

Interesting that both of these groups also still play stuff like original Necromunda and Mordheim, etc.  I don't see the typical GW business model working on these established groups - but as with all things, GW will believe they can acquire enough new customers to risk pissing off the old ones, etc.

[Belligerentparrot]

If The Old World becomes a core game … it would mean Sigmar (rightfully) failed.

Not sure about that, they're pretty different games. I think it would rather mean that GW would be feeling rich enough to expand its core lines so it can sell to both the fast-paced big-effects tournament-minded players with AoS and the (somewhat more) rank-and-flank minded players with the Old World.

I agree with Sturgkh's point above that GW is looking for a big 40k release each year. I couldn't tell you why, but the Imperium seems to capture GW's target market's imagination more than anything else they have ever come up with. I'm not immune to that, I think it is the most interesting bit too. I could see them using a longer cycle of Necromunda/Kill Team/40k themed Warhammer Quest like Blackstone etc. to fill the 3rd slot in Sturgkh's cycle.

Final rambling thought: it is interesting how long it took GW to realise what they've got with the Imperium. When I got into the hobby, you could get two massive tomes filling out the rules/fluff for the Chaos gods, and three tomes filling out the rules/fluff for Orks (admittedly more slapdash tomes than the RoC vols, but still). The Imperium was mostly mysterious and a bit undercooked, maybe because Confrontation didn't survive extended playtesting.

[pixelgeek]

Not sure about that, they're pretty different games.

Very different but the core initial audience for it were players who still had substantial Warhammer armies. They didn't pick up AoS because it was a better game. It was their only game.

I can see a lot of them adding Warhammer back into their repertoire and it having a dampening effect on future AoS sales.

[Sturgkh]

Heresy being so huge is, honestly, a bit surprising. Except… the market for GW might not be Little Billy, anymore - maybe it’s me, the nostalgia gamer. The one who wants Heresy, and Old World.

There's a ton of factors, but I think it comes down to 30k (the game) starting as a bit of a sandbox for 40k fans that were burnt out on GW's main games. I think the key things were that the first edition more or less lasted for a decade. You had the core books for the rules and base army lists, and then a more or less yearly campaign book release. While the 'black books' were massive, you overall had less rules churn than modern 40k has with edition turnover, FAQs responding to the latest tournament trends, and such.

The other thing is that the game overall had the feeling of a labor of love type project with Alan Bligh as its original heart and soul. The black books are just as much art books or short story collections as they were actual rulebooks. Plus the nature of the game itself. You can play human militia armies with Land Raiders, or Marine armies with Baneblades. You could almost build the army you wanted and there was an army list somewhere that could accommodate your model collection.

Couple that with the interest factor of seeing the Heresy background finally being fleshed out, and probably a lot of 40k gamers embracing a game that finally dropped the pretext of caring about non-Marine armies, and I think that drove a lot of 30k's success. Sadly, I think GW doesn't always grasp that sometimes their games thrive more the less GW tries to actively manage them like it does with 40k and AoS.

[HerbertTarkel]

Very different but the core initial audience for it were players who still had substantial Warhammer armies. They didn't pick up AoS because it was a better game. It was their only game.

I can see a lot of them adding Warhammer back into their repertoire and it having a dampening effect on future AoS sales.

Indeed, the people who played Fantasy (not Sigmar) from early days, I don’t think moved into Sigmar. The Old World was a way back to the fun days. For me, anyway.

[syrinx0]

Indeed, the people who played Fantasy (not Sigmar) from early days, I don’t think moved into Sigmar. The Old World was a way back to the fun days. For me, anyway.

I agree.  Our groups fantasy supporters passed on Sigmar completely. 

[Belligerentparrot]

The Old World was a way back to the fun days. For me, anyway.

The Old World really makes me feel old - I'm too old for it to push any nostalgia buttons. Almost all the minis they're bringing back hadn't been released when I was really enjoying getting into GW games and discovering the setting. 

I'm glad its working for some folk, though. The rules do seem a bit more unit focussed, less HeroHammer than in the past.

[Tactalvanic]

Couple that with the interest factor of seeing the Heresy background finally being fleshed out, and probably a lot of 40k gamers embracing a game that finally dropped the pretext of caring about non-Marine armies, and I think that drove a lot of 30k's success. Sadly, I think GW doesn't always grasp that sometimes their games thrive more the less GW tries to actively manage them like it does with 40k and AoS.

The original stuff, was primarily a labour of love, games by gamers for them. they wanted to bring their ideas and influences to a wider audience and as an aside make money from what they felt they were good at. Much of which came from different sources, and can feel "copied" to some, but they took the influences and brought them together into their worlds of imagination.
 
Now. GW don't care really about the "works better when they do less" - they care that something, in modern parlance  - is trending, popular and is likely to sell.

They see that and if projected trend upwards they will factor that into their product development and cycle. years of work goes into it, so if on the outside it looks like Heresy got no attention for years, well yes, but they noticed and in the background followed that with internal works to bring an official product range to tap into that trend.

Will they then kill some of that popularity over time - probably, as not all of that official stuff will be liked, but in the mean time they will lock in other trends to plan long term production and development towards.

Old World is another example of that, they no doubt started planning it years ago if not right after killing it in the first place, and registering the large displeasure and thought "hey thats interesting bet we can get a bit of money from that later".

They are a company that has lasted a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of how painful/annoying some of what they do may feel.

[McMordain]

The original stuff, was primarily a labour of love, games by gamers for them.

I doubt that one can make this work with a big company that is on the stock market.

On the other hand what they are doing seems to work, at least on the money making side:
https://www.tradingpedia.com/2024/11/22/games-workshop-stock-rises/