How do GW improve sales?

[Griefbringer]

Perhaps the sales of gold paints have been lacking lately, and somebody in charge decided to boost them with Custodes related releases?

 

There is also another line of figures, for certain other game, that presumably has been designed to boost the sales of gold paints, but they probably want to hold the bigger surprises for that until the next summer and new starter set release...

[Scribe]

On 10/28/2026 at 2:21 AM, Gamiel said:

A spokesman said: “We have won, as inevitably as the 13th Black Crusade of Abaddon the Destroyer laid waste the Imperium of Man. Don’t pretend you didn’t understand every word of that.

 

This killed me on the spot.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Because I said “hey Heresy and 40K have the same problems with people leaving because of rules” and you said “should had more xenos then”.

 

Brother I never responded to you at all, I was responding to the idea that it's JUST a rules problem. Heresy has way bigger problems than 40k; bad rules (40k rules are way better) AND a boring setting. That's a bad combo!

 

1 hour ago, Marshal Rohr said:

It’s been “niche” for 13 years, if you weren’t playing it because you need aliens, you’re not who matters when it starts struggling.

 

 

On the contrary; the game needs new players and they've already tapped out their current market. I should be exactly who they want to appeal to, IF they want new people. Doesn't seem like they do.

 

1 hour ago, Marshal Rohr said:

 

The people who matter to the health of the game are disengaging, and new players aren’t replacing them.

 

 People buying the product is all that really matters for the "health" of any game; rules are ephemeral and models are forever. 

Edited October 29 by DemonGSides

[SvenIronhand]

I have enough interest in Oldhammer to remember when Eldar Phantom Titans were being engaged by Traitor Land Raiders. :D

[ZeroWolf]

 

19 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

People buying the product is all that really matters for the "health" of any game; rules are ephemeral and models are forever. 

I think what GW missed is it turns out that some people like having a reason to use their models.

 

Not everyone of course, my father bought GW stuff but never played a game, but more than you think. If GW did some proper market research we might (and they) discover what proportion.

[TheTrans]

Look all the ragging on heresy, I just want to say back in 1.0 between Daemons of the Ruinstorm, Militia and Cults, Black Shields, AoDC etc... you had reasonably enough wiggle room in rules to pretty reliable recreate a large amount of armies outside of marines. 

Not to mention we had the amazing Aus30k stuff for Eldar, Necrons and Orks. 

2.0 started scuppering that and 3.0 and the speed at which it appeared I think murdered a lot of peoples impetus, especially in the community rules space. 

Seems the more 'support' heresy gets, the less healthy it's community becomes. 

Is this relevant to stock prices and stuff.. who knows. 

[Ahzek451]

29 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 People buying the product is all that really matters for the "health" of any game; rules are ephemeral and models are forever. 

Sounds like a definition issue, the "health" of a game being debated ad-nauseum because a lot of folk have different ideas on what that even means. 

[Marshal Rohr]

39 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Brother I never responded to you at all, I was responding to the idea that it's JUST a rules problem. Heresy has way bigger problems than 40k; bad rules (40k rules are way better) AND a boring setting. That's a bad combo!

 

 

On the contrary; the game needs new players and they've already tapped out their current market. I should be exactly who they want to appeal to, IF they want new people. Doesn't seem like they do.

 

 

 People buying the product is all that really matters for the "health" of any game; rules are ephemeral and models are forever. 

Yes, and less people who reliable bought product are buying product. Look at the esteemed N1SBs breakdown of sales last year during the 30k release. 

[Griefbringer]

26 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

I have enough interest in Oldhammer to remember when Eldar Phantom Titans were being engaged by Traitor Land Raiders. :D

 

This sounds like a reference to White Dwarf issue 110 (February 1989), page 66, showing a drawing by Pete Knifton, with caption "Rebel Land Raiders attack Eldar Phantom".

 

Just keep in mind that "We do not fight for your Emperor. We fight against Horus."

[ZeroWolf]

20 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

 

This sounds like a reference to White Dwarf issue 110 (February 1989), page 66, showing a drawing by Pete Knifton, with caption "Rebel Land Raiders attack Eldar Phantom".

 

Just keep in mind that "We do not fight for your Emperor. We fight against Horus."

Would love to read through those old issues again

[Gamiel]

1 hour ago, TheTrans said:

Look all the ragging on heresy, I just want to say back in 1.0 between Daemons of the Ruinstorm, Militia and Cults, Black Shields, AoDC etc... you had reasonably enough wiggle room in rules to pretty reliable recreate a large amount of armies outside of marines. 

Have I missed an update or don't we still have all those things? And with much cheaper Solar Auxilia boxes now. 

[Marshal Rohr]

21 minutes ago, Gamiel said:

Have I missed an update or don't we still have all those things? And with much cheaper Solar Auxilia boxes now. 

Yes, but the way you make things different now is mostly about statuses and less about stats and weapons and usrs. 

[Ahzek451]

An easy change to help would be an attitude shift. Today's announcement regarding stealth faq's and providing change logs being an example. Its not that this change isnt welcome...its that it took mass backlash for them to realize they needed to make the change. And rather, it shouldn't have come to fan backlash to do something they should have been doing anyway. 

 

Or in other words...someone with a lick of sense should have known that a ton of stealth updates without a changelog would be....unappreciated to say the least. Which feels more indicative of laziness or apathy.

[Marshal Rohr]

10 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

An easy change to help would be an attitude shift. Today's announcement regarding stealth faq's and providing change logs being an example. Its not that this change isnt welcome...its that it took mass backlash for them to realize they needed to make the change. And rather, it shouldn't have come to fan backlash to do something they should have been doing anyway. 

 

Or in other words...someone with a lick of sense should have known that a ton of stealth updates without a changelog would be....unappreciated to say the least. Which feels more indicative of laziness or apathy.

The people who push the changes to the app are likely offshore contractors. Even if they are British, they likely have no idea what they are updating or why it matters or even what is in the update. 

[TheTrans]

4 hours ago, Gamiel said:

Have I missed an update or don't we still have all those things? And with much cheaper Solar Auxilia boxes now. 

Not in the way it existed back in 1.0 mate, not by a long shot. 

[Antarius]

9 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Brother I never responded to you at all, I was responding to the idea that it's JUST a rules problem. Heresy has way bigger problems than 40k; bad rules (40k rules are way better) AND a boring setting. That's a bad combo!

I won't argue about the rules, but your opinion on the setting is at best highly subjective. To my knowledge the HH novels are their best sellers, so clearly not everybody agrees that the setting is boring.

One might also note the way they have emphasised the HH and its various elements in 40K over the last decade or so. If anything, they have "heresified" 40K, so GW at least must think it's a setting that appeals to their customers.

Edited Friday at 06:25 AM by Antarius

[Captain Idaho]

It's a matter of the pool of potential customers. Having a game that isn't the mainline game reduces it, that niche being heavily themed to a specific niche faction reduces it further, the rules and game mechanics being poorly received reduces it even more...

[Antarius]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the HH game isn't by its nature a niche product (although the novels do seem to have had a broader appeal than BL's other offerings, for some reason). But saying that HH is struggling because the setting is boring is an entirely different statement.

[Griefbringer]

Horus Heresy as a setting certainly has a more limited selection of likely tabletop engagements than the parent 40K setting, and may thus appeal to a more limited sub-section of gamers. That said, if we split the gamers into two groups (marine and non-marine players), and consider the preferred types of opponents, we get the following categories (though this is gross over-simplification):

 

1.) Marines who want to fight against other marines.

2.) Marines who want to fight against non-marines.

3.) Non-marines who want to fight against marines.

4.) Non-marines who want to fight against other non-marines.

 

Group 1 players might find Horus Heresy interesting. Groups 2 and 3 would be happiest in a setting where there is a good supply of both types of gamers (though marine players might at some point realise that their group 3 opponents tend to load their armies with anti-marine weaponry). Group 4 players will find 40K setting vastly preferable to Horus Heresy (though not necessarily ideal).

 

Though as I said before, those categories are a gross over-simplification.

[Dark Shepherd]

23 hours ago, phandaal said:

On the topic of tiny armies and "selling more," people also were not asking for a return of Epic Horus Heresy. They were asking for a return of Epic 40k.

 

That means GW started off selling to a smaller market, unless the percentage of Horus Heresy players who wanted an Epic version of their game is just way bigger than the percentage of 40k players who wanted or would play Epic 40k.

I think GW hedged their bets too much with L.I (Old World Ill forgive them more for)

 

However, and I dont agree with this logic, there may have been a thought of we cant release every 40k army in epic nor do we want to admit which ones are unpopular.

That said we also dont know if James Workshop commissioned epic or specialist games studio did

[ZeroWolf]

I believe L.I may have been set up with the line of thinking of being cost effective. To GW the HH setting provided an easy way to get two uses out of every mold for everything (till the mechanicum and dark mechanicum anyway). Ironically the mirror is to why the HH setting came into existence anyway. This will also be likely the thinking behind the Battlefleet Gothic rumours if they turn out true, locking that to the hersey setting.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to the cost and risk of proper 40k epic (to make the game worthwhile they'd have to launch the game with every army and every basic unit type or at least have a plan to show that everyone can play within a small time frame) and 40k BFG, but those are the games I want to play. I want an absolute horde of 8mm nids swarming a planets beleaguered defenders while my hive fleet fends off desperate raids in space. My spending on GW is meager compared to its peak, but give me those games with those choices...

[phandaal]

10 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

This will also be likely the thinking behind the Battlefleet Gothic rumours if they turn out true, locking that to the hersey setting.

 

That would be extremely disappointing, but if GW want to also limit their sales with Fleetionis Imperiusmus ("We Have Battlefleet Gothic at Home" is a little too wordy), that would be the way to do it.

[DemonGSides]

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

I won't argue about the rules, but your opinion on the setting is at best highly subjective. To my knowledge the HH novels are their best sellers, so clearly not everybody agrees that the setting is boring.

 

I like the setting!  It's a bad setting for a game though, especially if you're not interested in a civil war simulator.  There's lots of Xenos in the HH setting; they get no love in the game setting.  That's the "problem" (not that I really think it's a problem per se; just that if you want the game to be a large success, that's a large hurdle in it's way) that the game has even before rules become a consideration.

 

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

 

One might also note the way they have emphasised the HH and its various elements in 40K over the last decade or so. If anything, they have "heresified" 40K, so GW at least must think it's a setting that appeals to their customers.

 

I know GW WANTS the Heresy to appeal to more of it's customers; or at least it ostensibly SHOULD.  If they maybe made some Xenos armies in LI, people might be very interested in that (People who I ostensibly NEVER agree with are of a mind with me on this, so it's not just some mindless wishing).

 

This conversation has broadened in a weird way from what was originally an "LI should've been 40k or at least had more than just Non-Imperium adjacent armies" that it was originally about because some posters can't stand to have the Heresy talked about negatively unless they're slamming GW at the same time.  I don't think there's anything WRONG with a civil war type game, just that it's going to be inherently restrictive because of what the game is setting out to do, and it shouldn't be MUCH of a surprise that eventually that market becomes tapped as everyone who is interested in such a restricted concept has gotten on board (or enough that any new people coming into it are rounding errors).

 

There was an easier decision point back when LI was being conceptualized; just make it Epic again for reals and bring in more variety.  It'd be tough to do now because they're so blatantly in that Heresy era.

 

The Horus Heresy game can stay a civil war and then those people are taken care of.  I just think LI could've been a lot better and it would've also given it more success.  They didn't need to drop every faction at once; Imperium faction, Chaos Faction, 2 Xenos Factions and that would've tied people over as they released more and new stuff.

Maybe they can pivot while keeping some of the LI stuff, but it'd be weird, for sure.

Edited Friday at 01:06 PM by DemonGSides

[Antarius]

However, one thing I think everyone can probably agree (fingers crossed) is highly relevant to GWs goal of continually improved sales is how many game systems can be produced and maintained in a matter that is actually sustainable.

There are a couple of factors in play here, of course, but one thing I've been thinking about lately is that a lot of hobbyists (at least a lot of the ones I've met) used to be into nearly all of the games GW produced (it was not uncommon for people to have both a WFB/AoS and 40K army, as well as teams/gangs for the different skirmish games), but it seems to me that we've reached a point of diminishing returns, where producing more games doesn't necessarily mean more sales, because people can't play all of them (or rather, people can't convince themselves that they'll play all of them).
 

The flipside is that it does, of course, make sense to have different systems that appeal to different customers, but that also means accepting that some game lines will never be as popular and others - and of course, it also means accepting that some games are updated/have releases for them less often than others. They have done that (the latter, at least) with the specialist games, but whether they have realistic expectations for these games, I do not know.

[Griefbringer]

24 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I believe L.I may have been set up with the line of thinking of being cost effective. To GW the HH setting provided an easy way to get two uses out of every mold for everything (till the mechanicum and dark mechanicum anyway). Ironically the mirror is to why the HH setting came into existence anyway.

 

Less ironically, the original Horus Heresy games from 1989 (Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine) were also in epic scale (though the current epic scale models tend to be a bit larger than those originals).

 

As for the Legions Imperialis releases, there have been some releases that might not have been strictly necessary if cost control was an issue - dreadnought drop pods and Termite assault drills would not rank high if I had to make a release priority list (despite possible nostalgy value). On the other hand, some of the existing Epic scale releases (originally for Aeronautica Imperialis) have been discontinued - to my knowledge all xenos flyers and some Imperial craft introdued post-heresy.

 

As for release schedules, back in 2003 when Epic Armageddon was released, the original release (rules and models) was just orks, space marines and Steel legion imperial guard. Jervis Johnson wrote at the time in WD that a future release plan was to cover one new race (Eldar, Tau) a year with model and rule releases. However, he also mentioned that there would be "unofficial" playtest army lists available on the Specialist Games website. And naturally existing players had collections of older models that they could use (and many of which were still available from Mail Order - at least the metal ones). Nowadays, I would not expect to see GW management willingly releasing such multi-year release plan (or even committing to one) - nor would I expect the customer base to react positively to such a release rate.