Does the addition of Allies rules boost sales?

[Iron Puritan]

... wut.

OK GW. Whatever.

The concept of adding purchasable terrain to army lists is not something GW just invented for 6th. Other systems have this feature. For example, there are a number of army lists in Flames of War which feature fortifications. Think along the lines of bunkers and machinegun nests like those which lined the coasts of Normandy. Now picture Imperial Guard heavy weapons squads in big concrete bunkers. I would imagine it is something like that.

As far as boosting sales goes, the allies rule probably will help their bottom line somewhat as vets who "finished" their armies now have new opportunities for expansion. I don't expect the allies rule to be a long term sales booster though. It would be very interesting to see what happens if they decide to use the allies rule as a means of introducing smaller factions to the game. This would allow them to do so without having to release an entire codex.

[Ebon]

Being on disability, I have a fairly fixed budget each month so no, it won't affect how much I buy. It might affect what I buy. For example, I might well add some allied daemons to my CSM force.

[lanrak]

I belive every change in 40k rule sets is an attempt to boost sales.

Other companies have tacticaly deep and characterful rule set that alows lots of straight forward gameplay.And supports ALL of its factions equaly.

This means people keep buying ALL types of models ALL the time.(New sculpts simply replacing worn out moulds.)

However, due to 40k heavy dependance on strategic chioce, the rule set is tacticaly shallow.
So to get the variarion in the game play, players need to add new models.

GW plc spend an abolute fortune on developing new shiney models ,as they belive thier target demoghraphic responds to asthetics over funcion.
So allowing allies simply means there is more oportunity to temp thier customers with new shiney models.

Adding rules for terrain is not new, but GW plc put HUGE price increases on GW terrain just prior to 6th ed release.
This could be a coincidence, of course....

GW plc using new rules to price gouge even futher , who would have thunk it...

[AndrewGPaul]

The concept of adding purchasable terrain to army lists is not something GW just invented for 6th.

No, they invented it for 2nd edition Space Marine, and slightly later, 2nd edition 40K.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

Think along the lines of bunkers and machinegun nests like those which lined the coasts of Normandy. Now picture Imperial Guard heavy weapons squads in big concrete bunkers. I would imagine it is something like that.

Ah, see this makes a little more sense. I was thinking like you take a rocky hill as an elites choice and a forest that eats people a la 8th ed. fantasy for heavy support.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Ha ha ha! I assault you with my Blood Forest!

[6mmhero]

Ah, see this makes a little more sense. I was thinking like you take a rocky hill as an elites choice and a forest that eats people a la 8th ed. fantasy for heavy support.

I really hope you were joking lol. When I first heard about the terrain idea I was thinking along the lines of Planet Strike etc as it makes sense.

On another note I like the terrain rules for Fantasy as woods become very interesting to enter and can be quite fun.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

Thoughts?

So, having poked around in 40k General for a bit, I just noticed that you need 2,000 points to play with the allies rule in the first place... My personal opinion is that (at least with 5th edition) the game is most fun at 1,500 points and below.

Without knowing more about the rules and the average size of a 6th ed. 40k game, It's gonna be hard to say if the rule will have as big an impact as I initially thought (and I expected the impact in sales numbers to be relatively small in the first place). Unless the standard game size goes from 2,000 points to 2,250+, allies won't be on the brain for most players.

[Shamutanti]

I belive every change in 40k rule sets is an attempt to boost sales.

Other companies have tacticaly deep and characterful rule set that alows lots of straight forward gameplay.And supports ALL of its factions equaly.

This means people keep buying ALL types of models ALL the time.(New sculpts simply replacing worn out moulds.)

Like war machine??

[Scaryscarymushroom]

Like war machine??

Far more games than just Warmachine fit into this category.

Malifaux for instance. And although it's not the most popular game, I'd say Firestorm Armada also supports its races equally; both in rules and releases. Dust also doesn't seem to suffer from any favoritism, although it's a different beast.

[paddyalexander]

I think gwPLC will see some additional sales from having allies as customers who would usualy focus soley on a single army and already own large collections of minitures for their chosen force will now have reasons to buy models from different armies that they would have otherwise been resistant to. Already owning models for an army makes it more likely for a person to expand that collection out into its' own playable force.

The down side is that a game with very poor balance to begin with is going to see any illusions of it fly out the window. But who knows, maybe everyone now having access to other armies broken entries will be a balancing factor. Either way be prepared to be playing against Grey Knights a lot.

[Misfratz]

I don't play Fantasy, but the latest edition had Allies rules, and now 40k does as well. Is this a marketing strategy...

If it was a marketing strategy then I wouldn't have expected that it would have been in and out of the rules as often as it has been in both Fantasy and 40K. It would have simply stayed in the rules.

However, GW have been really inconsistent with ally rules, introducing and then removing them more times then I care to remember. There's obviously a conflict between encouraging allies for narrative/fun purposes (Traitor Guard with Chaos Daemons; Drop Pod Blood Angels arriving to save the IG on Armageddon) and restricting allies so that you can concentrate on making each individual codex/army book distinctive, coherent and balanced.

In all honesty I expect that a future edition of 40k will remove, or severely restrict, the allies rules being introduced for 6th edition. I hope to enjoy the use of allies as much as I can while they last, and to find players willing to continue playing with them when they are removed.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

So let's look at 7th edition then when the allies rule disappears. By the end of 6th, everyone has a 2k point army, and a diverse collection of now unusable miniatures. That is, unusable unless they buy more.

Do you think that vehicles will be weak in 6th edition, now that everyone has some?

[Misfratz]

So let's look at 7th edition then when the allies rule disappears. By the end of 6th, everyone has a 2k point army, and a diverse collection of now unusable miniatures. That is, unusable unless they buy more.

Do you think that vehicles will be weak in 6th edition, now that everyone has some?

Your argument makes sense if you think that GW is focussed on making money from veteran, long-term players, who stick with the game for at least two transitions of the core rules.

This is not consistent with the normal criticism of GW that they are solely focussed on selling as much as possible to 12 year olds called Timmy.

Since the Machiavellian interpretations of GWs strategy tend towards being internally contradictory I tend to dismiss them in favour of the idea that GW are genuinely attempting to increase sales by making their game better. However, like all of us, they are prone to making mistakes. If I might take the liberty of quoting a fictional character...

I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger.

I tend to think that a lot of the things that the GW design studio come up with are awesome. Being rather more talented at what they do than many people, their mistakes tend to be correspondingly more dramatic...

[Shamutanti]

Far more games than just Warmachine fit into this category.

Malifaux for instance. And although it's not the most popular game, I'd say Firestorm Armada also supports its races equally; both in rules and releases. Dust also doesn't seem to suffer from any favoritism, although it's a different beast.

Where as I think Malifeux supports their current range fairly well by offering good diverse characters to all war bands/factions, I don't believe war machine does that for a second in truth. Probably should of added in sarcasm tags .

In fact I would say PP is as bad as GW in bringing out rule sets designed specifically to increase sales. Of course I don't have a problem with that personally, but just saying, GW ain't the only company business-focused.

[lanrak]

Hi Misfratz.
GW plc TARGET children with thier insular direct marketing and rules writing.

BUT are also aware of the other main demographic heavily invested vets , who are 'locked in' to 40k.
The 'I have spent over $4000 on 40k, I can NOT afford to start another game ' Group.

Also GW plc are also aware of E Bay re-sales so want to change the meta game to de-value the glut of abandoned models.(Also this is one of the reasons behind new shiney model syndrome.)

ALL the things the GW studio staff develop design, ARE awsome.All the corperate inteferance in game development is MAINLY responcible for the gak!

(Just look at what the game developers and artists achive free of corperate influence!)

[EmperorNorton]

GW are genuinely attempting to increase sales by making their game better.

If that were the case, don't you think they would have perfected their game at some point in the last thirty years instead of continuing to publish new editions every few years?
If their only goal was to make their game better, wouldn't small but frequent adjustments be more helpful in reaching it than a complete overhaul twice a decade?

[Fear Ghoul]

If that were the case, don't you think they would have perfected their game at some point in the last thirty years instead of continuing to publish new editions every few years?
If their only goal was to make their game better, wouldn't small but frequent adjustments be more helpful in reaching it than a complete overhaul twice a decade?

Depends on what you define as better. Alessio Cavatore clearly has a different concept of good than Matt Ward. And generally speaking the game has become better since 3rd edition, and 3rd edition onwards combat was definitely an improvement over 2nd edition.

I think Allies will encourage people to buy models when they have no more models to buy for their main army. No Blood Angels players can purchase a squad of Grey Knights or some Guardsmen between now and when they receive their next update.

[Lord Inquisitor]

If that were the case, don't you think they would have perfected their game at some point in the last thirty years instead of continuing to publish new editions every few years?
If their only goal was to make their game better, wouldn't small but frequent adjustments be more helpful in reaching it than a complete overhaul twice a decade?

I'm not sure. Certainly as the designers come and go, different approaches are tried with the codecies, from the minimalist 3rd to the streamlined 4th to the bloated 5th. Their demographic has changed too and they've tried focusing on various subpopulations (producing specialist games, killing specialist games, changes in white dwarf, etc.). WFB seems to have responded at least a bit towards the players who want balance. 40K has been moving in the opposite direction.

I genuinely believe that GW try to balance their games as much as possible though - imbalances are due to error rather than malice. It's hard to really see a defined pattern in how they are "making" us buy product. There are so many examples of new shiny kits with lackluster new rules, if they are trying to make us buy new units because of good new rules then they really suck at it sometimes.

As for regular updates they have a policy of not invalidating their printed material if it isn't necessary and it makes sense. Not necessarily the best for balance agreed.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

It's hard to really see a defined pattern in how they are "making" us buy product. There are so many examples of new shiny kits with lackluster new rules, if they are trying to make us buy new units because of good new rules then they really suck at it sometimes.

I disagree that the new kits with lackluster rules make it hard to see a defined pattern in "making" their customers buy. IMO, a pattern is fairly simple. They take a good unit/model and attempt to make other things as good as it. But then, since they're redesigning the whole book, they need to make changes to the good thing too. In essence, 'trying to fix what isn't broken.' And then they screw up the rules for the units that everyone has, and make good the rules for units that no one does. Note, there's no malice here, and they aren't doing it first and foremost to squeeze more money out of their vets. They're just bumbling oafs that see an opportunity to make one thing look appealing, and then they go too far and ruin the other stuff. The tyranids from 4th to 5th edition are a good example.

From 4th to 5th edition, GW has changed the plural of Carnifex to Carnifeces. I believe that the prevalence of the 'nid-zilla list in 4th had something to do with the redesign of the tyranids. Not the redesign of the carnifex; the carnifex didn't need any help. But the redesign of the lowly gaunt, and the introduction of the trygon. I argue that GW's goal was to encourage sales by changing the meta-game to make other things look just as appealing as the carnifex was. But then, they needed to bring the 'fex "in line" with 5th edition, so they wouldn't have just ignored the 'fex rules. They needed to make changes there too. And their motive to makes the 'fex a reasonable inclusion in an army was lacking when compared to design for the other units in the codex, because people already field plenty of 'fexes in their armies.

With the current release schedule, I believe imbalanced rules that come about in the codices of a previous edition, combined with the current BRB, are likely a huge factor in shaping sales and future rules development. 4th edition MEQ codices had low cost rhinos. With the reworking of the vehicle damage table, that XX point transport became king of the tabletop. Given that they update 1-3 codices a year, many people will be playing 5th edition with a 4th edition codex. Rhino sales go up. And with regard to marines, they get locked in a vicious cycle because they don't appear to want to update every army at once. At a glance, no one would want a new marine book if the price of a rhino were 15 points higher than in the older books (which is what the rhino is worth, IMO).

Then, the armies that have had the most rules functionally nullified or contradicted by the BRB get an update. They look at sales, and deliberately make the lower sales volume products look more appealing. This goes hand in hand with bringing a model 'up to date' though.

And to bring this whole thing back to the main point, It's entirely possible that the allies rule just exists to change the shape of the meta-game, which will inadvertently encourage sales. But then when allies are taken away, that will also inadvertently encourage sales amongst a different demographic.