Does the addition of Allies rules boost sales?

[yabbadabba]

In terms of sales, the Allies rule is a double edged sword for GW.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Hmm, that's a thought. There could be a really long term plan here. Put allies in 6th, improve sales with many players buying small forces to add onto their existing armies. 7th ed, remove allies, everyone with half an army is encouraged to buy the rest of the models required to make it a full army.

(I don't really believe it would be worth it for GW to think like this or plan 4 years ahead but it's fun to theorise.)

[Tay051173096]

Hmm, that's a thought. There could be a really long term plan here. Put allies in 6th, improve sales with many players buying small forces to add onto their existing armies. 7th ed, remove allies, everyone with half an army is encouraged to buy the rest of the models required to make it a full army.

(I don't really believe it would be worth it for GW to think like this or plan 4 years ahead but it's fun to theorise.)

White dwarf features could be able to sell this really well.

A few articles showing different forces together, with tie in paint schemes or converstions (traitor guard) could sell ideas to those looking at some of the other models but can't justify them for their army.

It will be nice to be able to field a selection of units.

As long as people spend the money...

[Omniassiah]

Hmm, that's a thought. There could be a really long term plan here. Put allies in 6th, improve sales with many players buying small forces to add onto their existing armies. 7th ed, remove allies, everyone with half an army is encouraged to buy the rest of the models required to make it a full army.

(I don't really believe it would be worth it for GW to think like this or plan 4 years ahead but it's fun to theorise.)

Honestly looking back at edition and codex changes I don't think its that much of a stretch. Its not just Rule editions but Codexes, generally lower selling models will get a buff while old staples often get nerfed. I would be surprised if sales data isn't used to determine rules changes as I know that other companies use it as well. Problem is GW tends not to do minor tweaks anymore like they do.

[eron12]

Hmm, that's a thought. There could be a really long term plan here. Put allies in 6th, improve sales with many players buying small forces to add onto their existing armies. 7th ed, remove allies, everyone with half an army is encouraged to buy the rest of the models required to make it a full army.

(I don't really believe it would be worth it for GW to think like this or plan 4 years ahead but it's fun to theorise.)

I would hope a company the size of GW makes plans for four years in the future. I'm sure they will still be around then, they better also think they will still be around.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Oh I'm sure they have a business plan 4 years in the future, I just doubt they are planning the 7th edition rules changes already.

[Bookwrak]

Hmm, that's a thought. There could be a really long term plan here. Put allies in 6th, improve sales with many players buying small forces to add onto their existing armies. 7th ed, remove allies, everyone with half an army is encouraged to buy the rest of the models required to make it a full army.

I rather doubt it'd be anything quite so moronic, not when there's the much more reasonable explanation that gamers being gamers, once they've started buying another army to use as allies, it's highly likely that sooner or later they'll decide that since they've already added a couple of units that they might as well make a full army out of it.

[The bearded one]

I rather doubt it'd be anything quite so moronic,

They did it with the hordes of chaos armybook.

[loveless]

They did it with the hordes of chaos armybook.

That was painful in so many ways

A thought: was the Allies matrix a sales boost attempt, a fan service attempt (here, have your daemons back - have your mixed Chaos back - have your human auxilliaries - have your Kroot mercs, etc.), or both? If it was anything other than a "pure" money-grab, I can't imagine them removing the allies until a couple of editions down the road, if at all. Maybe enough people complained to make them write it back in without having to publish new supplements.

Oddly enough, the Ally system actually gives them a good reason to streamline/decrease the Space Marine books...they won't, but it'd be a lot easier to consolidate now.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

Oddly enough, the Ally system actually gives them a good reason to streamline/decrease the Space Marine books...they won't, but it'd be a lot easier to consolidate now.

I don't actually think that's true. Back when I cared (last year) I was planning on picking up a couple of space wolf terminators, imperial fist shoulderpads, death company, a thunder-whatever-its-called cannon, some Black Templars Boxes & Characters, etc etc etc; and paint them all in the same color so that I could freely codex-hop and the units wouldn't look out of place. Although one could say that the tendency for players to do that already actually invalidates the alleged purpose of the allies rule (to boost sales), I think if I could field an actual *Space Wolf* Terminator's Squad with my actual *Black Templars* Neophytes, I'd just bring both codices to the table and use them that way, rather than having to fuss over which rules to use.

At the very least, GW would have gotten me to buy a second codex.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the number of space marine books is part of what makes the models themselves appealing. It doesn't matter to me much now; I've pretty much stopped buying GW stuff in favor of other models. But if I were in the market for GW stuff, I'd be further tempted if there was just some more diversity with the space marine rules because I'm the kind of personality that would happily codex-hop. (Within reason. GK are not space marines.) Consolidating the armies doesn't seem a good idea to me. Diversifying would serve them better.