Marketwatch: GW’s 2017-18 Half-Year Financials

Stock market data with uptrend vector. 3d render.

The Half-Year numbers are in and things are looking rosy for Games Workshop.

Games Workshop’s latest numbers are looking solid. Keep in mind this Half-Yearly report covers their fiscal year and not the standard year (that’s why it ends at November 26th, 2017).

via GW Investor Relations

Games Workshop Half-Year Results: 2017-2018

Kevin Rountree, CEO of Games Workshop:

“Our business and our Warhammer Hobby are in great shape.

We are pleased to report record sales and profit levels in the period. It is encouraging that sales and profit growth continue across all regions and channels. Given the high levels of operational gearing and our relentless management of our costs, our improving sales performance has translated into record profit and cash levels.

Our sales for the month of December have also shown good growth trends.”

Top Level Numbers (2017 vs 2016)

Revenue: +53%
Operating Profit (Pre-exceptional item & royalties): +229%
Operating Profit: +181%
Earnings Per Share: +187%

Sales Channel Reports (Revenue):

(Constant Currency Numbers)

Retail: +34%
Trade Sales: +64%
Mail-order (web store): +71%

—–

Just comparing this report to the Annual Report from 2016-17 you can see the optimism reflected in the chairman’s report.

A new edition for your hallmark game is always a shot in the arm. 40k’s 8th Edition was a HUGE gamble – but one that has paid off handsomely. The quality of miniatures is still top of the industry and we don’t want to forget about the huge strides they have made as a company to reach out to the fan base. Finally we can’t forget all those value bundle deals they have been putting out (Start Collecting & Battle Force Boxes). It sounds like Games Workshop is roaring ahead.

 

Have fun with this one – and remember NO CHAIRS – be nice!

  • Ghachii

    While these financial results look good on paper, they’re actually terrible and prove that GW was wrong to switch to Age of Sigmar. Me and all 4 of my friends have been boycotting GW until they see sense and bring back Warhammer Fantasy and the Old World, and it’s good to see our totally rational campaign finally hitting GW where it hurts. At this rate they’ll be out of business in a year unless they start pandering to bitter ex-customers like myself. Square bases for life!

    • Fergie0044

      “out of business in a year”
      Ah, the age old rallying call of the bitter fans.

      • Karru

        I am kinda hoping that one day they would bring back War of the Ring style system to AoS, rank and file combat with round bases in other words. As for the lore, that one is very easy to be honest, as I just ignore the new lore completely and play in the Old World.

        I don’t see the reason why people need to toot the horn so negatively, just saying they would like to see rank-and-file combat return would be nice and it wouldn’t take that much from GW to begin with technically since all it requires would be moulds for the movement trays, that’s it.

        • It would be cool if GW published their older games digitally through Specialist Games.

        • AEZ

          If it’s so easy: you make the rules and play them with GW mini’s if it’s good it’ll be a success.

          • Karru

            9th Age is doing fantastic from what I have seen, so the Fantasy rules would still sell a lot. Same thing with War of the Ring rules when those were a thing, so the market is there.

            The main problem is that you kinda need the movement trays for it, which means that it can get annoying fast if you try to get new people in.

          • CloakingDonkey

            9th Age doing “fantastic” is a very subjective observation. Where I live, no one still plays it. It’s either Kings of War or Age of Sigmar.

            WFB just was flawed. I don’t mind rank and file, I play both Black Powder and Hail Caesar all the time and am thinking about also getting a Scots Covenanters army for some Pike & Shotte. But that is the reason why I play them, because we are using the Warlord Games systems for rank and file battles, which are nice, simple and easy to understand. WFB was just a convoluted mess of a game that would take forever when playing against newbies and would lead to so many arguments because it requires a level of movement accuracy that mere mortals are simply not capable of.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. WFB suffered from just as many issues as AoS or 40K or honestly any GW game. The bigger problem is that they honestly just stopped supporting it beyond the rare army release, while they went full in on their cash cow with 40K. During that era, the era of do minimal to max profits, they used the logic of “40K sells more, focus on 40K”. I mean how cool would have small 3 book campaigns been in the Old World, like the BA/Tyranid campaign, or the Ork/SM one. GW simply just didn’t try, not nearly to the degree they’ve tried with AoS.

          • Apocryphus

            This, a thousand times this.

          • AEZ

            I don’t completely agree. While I think that the whole new setting wasn’t needed I do think the new AoS rules are what makes AoS more suited to more people (I personally mean it’s better but I guess not everyone would agree but I think my current statement can hardly be argued with).
            However I DO think there is a problem with the lore as it was because progression was hardly possible. Chaos incursions had to go to Kislev (it’s actually hardly credible Kislev still existed) and then the Empire.. which makes for a very onesided story since Chaos kinda had to be stopped there or the empire would be gone…. and realisticly that would have been permanent. The current lore without fixed maps means we can lose large towns, countries and whatever in a campaign or story as easily as whole planets are lost in 40K. Once in a while something might happen to “important”planets in 40K (cadia?) but overall whole chaos incursions can happen.. it can be written like chaos had HUGE victories and was only beaten back after that without anything IMPORTANT being permanently lost (I mean.. in 40K a 100 planets being cleansed after chaos had them a 100 years…isn’t important as long as it’s not earth or mars)… the same will be true in AoS. Yes.. I get that unless your army comes from Azyrheim you will not have much stories about it specifically .. but the general AoS lore can advance, change etc etc. stuff can happen on a larger scale without giving permanent problems for a faction. (I mean dwarves in the old world.. before more stories/the lore takes place they’ve lost a lot.. only a few Karaz remaining… if they’d lost a few more they’d just be gone.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, but that’s just the difference between a setting for gaming, and a story. The dwarves never had to lose another hold. Or, even better, they could have even taken some back. To say that there was only one direction for the old world to go is just silly. Sure GW loved creating settings where the good guys were always on the edge of losing, but there’s no reason, within the old world, that the good guys couldn’t have started winning.

            A PERFECT example of this, World of Warcraft. I mean how many times has the Azeroth almost been completely destroyed. So many expansions at this point. And yet they’ve come back, and you know what, it feels really good. Sure there’s always the next world ending threat, but to say that just because theres a threat means there’s no chance goes against the plot of every fantasy story ever written practically. I mean this is the concept that is more suited to more people. Sure it goes against the grim-dark, but the game didn’t have to stay grim-dark (their desire to do so has made these new stories fall even flatter imo).

            Why GW decided they couldn’t allow the good guys to win without blowing up the world is beyond me. I think it was honestly a mistake. But definitely the biggest issue with WHFB is that they just stopped caring. Period. I mean you look at the speed of fantasy releases, support and events, and the support was just downright dying, again, because GW was in an era of profits over anything, and investing in 40K saw the highest returns…

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            When you have multiple editions of the same four armies being the best… yeah not a lot of caring going on. The initial effort they put into the end times got more than a few of my gaming group interested in fantasy again, something that had died with 8th edition. Then they killed the world and went to skirmish style combat and that killed fantasy in my area. I have friends that play AoS but if I want to play skirmish style I’ll play Mordheim.

          • marxlives

            True but being able to lose infinite ground may give more material but it doesn’t make the ground important. Scarcity does.

          • marxlives

            True, when you look at the financials, it wasn’t AoS that made GW profits, it was 40k and only 40k. And I am sure only 40k in the future.

          • Agent OfBolas

            GW left WFB because it was so bad game, that old players were leaving it and for new players it was too much to go through all books and learn rules fast to get in to game.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well that’s unfortunate that your community thought so, but our group of around 20 stopped playing because armies went unsupported with no new releases or interesting events for years, 5+ for some. We had no issue learning the rules or gaining new players, other game systems just supported their fantasy games much better.

          • marxlives

            True I have seen more WHFB played than 9th. When I ask why players don’t play 9th I guess it is because it is not tournament supported in the big events.

          • Agent OfBolas

            Not true, the T9A is official ruleset for ETC and all WFB tournaments in most countries went to T9A ruleset.

            In my country, T9A championships gathered more players than WFB managed to get since I remember.

          • marxlives

            I am not discounting you, I just wonder why my local group isn’t playing 9th then? I asked him about it because WHFB has been gathering steam and 9th is supported and he said there was no tournament support or something. Maybe it was just a methane burst. The human population gets those from time to time.

          • AEZ

            Well… 9th age isn’t doing fantastic from what I’ve seen.. since I’ve NOT seen it played AT all the last 2 years. I saw it played a bit at start.. but not anymore. Different regions I guess.
            Why would movement trays be a problem? I still put magnets on everything and in the end of WFB I bought cut to size metal plates for about 1 -2 euro each. ideal for magnetized troops and transporting (still use them with AoS).

          • Agent OfBolas

            in my area T9A simply died. First, a lot of players left it after 1.3, and now the 2.0 was the nail to the coffin.

            T9A simply went too far from Warhammer Fantasy to … some strange hybrid where whole fun was took away. The neverending “balance must prevail” things are making T9A just plain and boring.

            No one plays T9A in my area, just Sigmar and KoW as well as it’s strange but gamers started to play historical games, R&F napoleonic in most cases.

        • Fergie0044

          Yea. And from what I heard the War of the Ring was a really good system. It just required far too many models for young and poor me to even consider playing.

      • ZeeLobby

        Haha. What’s crazy is for years they honestly didn’t look that great on paper. Definitely in no fear of failing, but definitely struggling. Not sure how anyone could argue with these numbers though.

        • Fergie0044

          Good thing they had the DoW games to keep them going during the dark times.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. Shopping their IP definitely minimized the blow.

    • Emprah

      Well memed sir, well memed.

    • Moonsaves

      Now all we need is someone who quit the hobby four years ago to tell us about how awful the game is these days.

    • ohhpoong

      lol one of the best comments ive seen

    • defensive

      This current rise is entirely on the back of 40k though.

      If you look at their earnings from 2015, they actually earned less than they did in 2014, despite the release of the brand spanking new AoS, and the CEO of the time was fired because of it.

      Let’s not act like AoS is a roaring success, either financially, or gameplay wise.

      • Ghachii

        I know, right? What exactly do GW think they’re doing throwing resources at a failing game like AoS year after year? It’s no surprise that their financials suck (even though they *look* healthier than ever on paper, but you can prove anything with facts).

        I don’t get why they keep releasing more and more product for AoS year after year and promoting it more and more heavily when that sucky first year obviously proved that AoS is unpopular and has no future. It’s like they’re trying to make us *think* it’s popular by spending the same amount of time and money on it as they would if it was *actually* popular. But smart people like us see right through that.

        AoS is a failure and it will fail completely within a year. I know I said that about GW every year for the past 20 years too, but technically they did fail in every one of those years if you follow the logic that I’m using rather than regular logic for chumps.

        Square bases for life!

        • defensive

          Which is why their earnings hardly changed till 8th edition dropped?
          But I’m sure AoS is just a sleeper hit, and was actually behind their stock explosion, that just so happened to coincide with the release of the total FLOP that was 8th ed, right?

          • Ghachii

            I totally disagree, it’s obvious that AoS actually *lost* money last year and was only saved from the axe by the success of 40K 8th edition. People have told me that I can’t know that for certain because we don’t see the breakdown of where exactly the revenue has come from, but smart people like you and I don’t need facts to prove that our opinions are right.

          • defensive

            Maybe you could reply to what I’m actually saying?

            At what point did I say AoS was a total failure? I would point you to the comment directly above, where I in fact say that AoS probably earns back more than it costs them.
            But look at the numbers. The earnings don’t really move all that much, until the release of 40k 8th edition.
            What part of those numbers at all indicate that AoS had anything to do with that?

          • Ghachii

            I think it is *you* who needs to read what *I* am saying. Good day to you.

          • defensive

            Sure thing, bud.
            And people wonder why AoS is seen as a kid’s game…

          • Kreoss4u

            He is being sarcastic. You are buying it, hook, line, and sinker.

          • defensive

            I know he’s being sarcastic and mocking people that think AoS is a failure.
            And I’m asking him what part of this article at all points to anything with do with AoS.
            And he cannot do it, as is typical of his type.

            All smugness, no content.

          • Ghachii

            How dare you assume my gender.

          • marxlives

            I could tell you got his sarcasm. I just wish his sarcasm made sense.

          • happy_inquisitor

            Their revenue was not flat before 8th dropped. Actually go back and look at the results and you will see it was already heading up. Actually just go back 6 months on BoLS and you will see that it was up.

        • John Traupman

          LOL. Huge margin growth and 50% growth on revenue is bad, hahaha
          Look at AoS sales after year one since GH came out. Yea they flopped the release but it got rid of grognards from the game that cried about lots of things. The game is way Moreno’s approachable to new people and without that then the game will die. 9th age will die with old legacy WHFB people. I’d bet the world that 9th would go away before AoS without official support and outdated and overcomplex rules that’s don’t bring in fresh blood.

      • Fergie0044

        If it wasn’t selling they’ll drop it, just like they did with fantasy warhammer. If it is selling, they’ll keep it and expand it.

        • defensive

          If it isn’t selling, they are going to try and make it sell before they give it the axe.
          But I have no doubt it makes it’s money back at least, though it’s obviously not their main focus, when 40k sells like it does, and it’s DEFINITELY not behind this sudden explosion of earnings.

          • Fergie0044

            I’m only young, but has there been a time in the last 20 years when 40k WASN’T their main focus and breadwinner?

          • defensive

            Perhaps it was just my local scene, but the division between Fantasy and 40k used to be a lot closer 10 years ago.
            It was maybe a 40/60 split, with fantasy tournaments being quite popular, and you could always find a game quite easily.

            Now it’s probably more like 20/80 or possibly more where I play, with 40k just dominating, and AoS rarely seen.
            Hardly any tournaments for it either, compared to the number of 40k ones.

            Perhaps it is just my local scene, and it’s more popular elsewhere, but 40k just wipes the floor with it now.
            Honestly, I probably see more local people playing 9th ed Fantasy, but that I will admit is a lot of the older players.

          • ohhpoong

            I dont think local game scenes do give off a clear picture of the revenue streams of GW.

            Their main focus is on newcomers and collectors, who are more keen about buying new models and can become potential hardcore gamers in the long run.

            These guys generate most profits for the company as GW is so keen about releasing completely new models like primaris marines and kharadron overlords (GW states that 1/3 of annual sales come from new models released within that year.) rather than releasing models that hardcore gamers hope for, such as plastic Aspect Warriors.

            This is also why GW has focused so much on easy-to-build kits and increasing the release window of new models.

          • defensive

            Of course they don’t give the full picture, but they are one part of it.
            But I mean, look at the youtube channels, the facebook pages, the articles on sites like this.
            They’re all overwhelmingly 40k.

            And then look at their overall company sales the year of AoS’ release, and the year after it. There is not even a hint that it was all that popular compared to what came before.
            There is no doubt AoS had a controversial and difficult release though.

          • ohhpoong

            I doubt you can have a huge boost in sales in the first year of release: GW basically destroyed WHFB and started from scratch, and they were basically starting off the franchise with a focus on two factions (Sigmarines and Khorne) and nothing else to buy.

            If I remember correctly GW’s profit last year (June 2016 to May 2017) went up by a huge margin compared to the previous year and they had a huge range of AoS products released during that time. Although 40k did also have new products released too, I don’t you can credit that much of a profit increase to 40k alone.

            Plus GW literally stated in their financial statement that AoS is enjoying higher profit than that of Fantasy.

            But to be very fair, the biggest reason for this rise in sales is GBP going down so much after brexit….

          • defensive

            Well, look at the release of 8th ed, and you can see what is possible for a new release.

            Perhaps AoS has some contribution to this spike, but when you compare it to the past two years AoS has been out, and it has almost no effect on stock prices and revenue, it’s hard to imagine how much of an effect it really had, compared to the 40k flagship.

            I can’t imagine it would sell less than fantasy, but to claim that the system they are putting the most work into curently, sells better than fantasy did after they let it just rot, doesn’t mean much.

          • ohhpoong

            if youre saying WHFB 8th edition was a success compared to AoS release, thats the point im making isnt it? 8th edition was basically building upon the WHFB customer base they already had, while AoS was a completely new franchise.

            Still, I do agree with you that it is unfair to say that AoS is a huuuge success just because it sells better than WHFB. They couldve just put that effort into WHFB 9th edition to expand the fluff and that might have been as much of a sucess as well.

            And I do think GW did in the end learn that destroying a setting completely just to get the story going may not be a good idea. I think the whole Gathering Storm thing in 40k was just a softer version of WHF End Times: move the story forward with a radical change (+ new shiny warriors)

          • defensive

            My bad, I meant 40k 8th. That is an unfortunate lining up of editions.

            But yeah, I don’t think Fantasy was sustainable at the rate they were going with it, but AoS didn’t change it all that much, rather just putting it in a holding pattern for the time being, instead of a slow decline.

            My main point originally, is that this current spike in sales, driven by 40k, doesn’t really reflect on the quality or popularity of AoS all that much.

          • NikosanPrime

            Lol, no, you’re right 40k, for the last 30 years, has always been the main bread winner.

      • Vicent Martín Bonet

        LOL. Kirby stepped down as CEO BEFORE the release of AoS.

        And in 2014, guess what? They did release codex space marines, eldar and necrons…. hum!

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean AoS was put in place before Kirby stepped down (if it followed any of GW’s normal release schedules).

          • Vicent Martín Bonet

            Yes, it came into being around 2013 with Kirby around. But the release, and thus sales data influx, happened AFTER.

          • ZeeLobby

            Definitely agree, but it’s not like Kirby wasn’t at the helm of AoS. Releasing 4 pages of rules, and no points system, sounds like something Kirby would be at the helm of anyway. Fits squarely with his “models first, games second” approach. In the end you can’t really disconnect the two.

          • Vicent Martín Bonet

            … Have you by any chance missed the point of my comment?

            My comment was regarding that AoS sold so bad that Kirby got kicked out for it. Please don’t go on weird unrelated tangents.

          • ZeeLobby

            my apologies, I simply didn’t understand. No need to claim that my tangent was “weird”, just misunderstood. You’re right.

        • defensive

          He made horrible choices for the company, and he completely oversaw the development of AoS.

          The fact that AoS released in the state it did, and with the sales it had, would have been no surprise to GW, and since they saw it all long before the public did, it would have no doubt contributed to his firing.

          • Vicent Martín Bonet

            You want to know something?

            He didn’t get fired, he’s retiring from old age, sorry to burst that bubble you’re setting.

            if you want to continue the conversation please show me the sales AoS proper had during this period.

          • defensive

            Not like they are really gonna say one way or the other.
            But it’s no secret that he did a pretty poor job of running the company, made a lot of inflamatory statements, and celebrated the company losing stock value, because it meant he could get more money in the long run.

            Go and look at the 2015 revenue reports, and compare them to the 2014 reports.
            For a year where they release an entirely new system, you would expect revenue to increase by more than “-1%”

          • Vicent Martín Bonet

            Bahahahaha. Man, keep on mate!

            Do you really think that 40k was going well instead of bleeding too? The decrease is due to the big cow’s withering, not AoS in itself.

      • marxlives

        True, in a way I can see AoS going the way of WHFB but in shorter time. The real money maker for GW after year 2000 has been 40k. I think the only reason WHFB hung on was because of its history within the company.

        • Apocryphus

          Ugh, it’d almost be more insulting if that happened. Kill off a setting I loved to replace it with a setting I don’t love just to kill that off because it didn’t work.

    • orionburn III
      • Frank Krifka

        Took me awhile, but I saw it too.

    • Rush Darling

      You’ve have made my day. Carry on.

    • dave long island

      “its not about mistakes, it’s about choices. and they’ve chosen to make this mistake.” – Jerri Blank… lol

    • Kostas Pap Gus

      I am not an AoS player but I don’t think that your statistical sample (you and your friends) is big enought to prove that AoS was a mistake.

      • Ghachii

        Well there are 5 of us so we each represent 20% of the sample. 5 x 20% = 100% which is *literally* the most percent you can get, so how can you say that the sample size isn’t big enough? Basically everyone hates AoS and this proves it.

      • EnTyme

        You may want to recalibrate your sarcasm radar, Kostas.

    • Mike X (Official)

      You’re not alone. My gaming group quit once the Primaris were released.

      • ZeeLobby

        That wouldn’t shock me. What a truly dreadful release.

      • zeno666

        Very understandable.
        They’re really forcing them down peoples throats.

      • Munn

        Your gaming group are really really lame then.

    • denzark

      I can’t tell if you’re being ironic or not. But if this is serious, you are even wronger now than the people who were wrong while GW was pushing a loss, and they were wronger than a wrong thing who was opining that 2+2=5.

    • Rafał Pytlak

      Your just old and bitter that they took your favourite toys

      • Ghachii

        How dare you?! I’m 57 years young! And no-one took my favourite toys – GW will have to pry WHFB 8th edition from my cold dead fingers. If they don’t want it then it’s mine now. I and those like me will look after it until GW come to their senses. Long live Warhammer Fantasy and the Old World!

        • Rafał Pytlak

          Nagash. Nagash is Eternal, and through Him, the remains of the Old World

    • NikosanPrime

      Nice sarcasm. Quite well done in fact.

      Now, it is true that you should put your money where you believe in. But, on the other hand even I have bought some of the new stuff. Then again they did bring back most of the rules I have been asking for so I have reason to support them.

    • Ed Butlar

      I’m in a bar reading this and I laughed so loud everyone looked over as if I was mad. Funniest thing I’ve ever read on bols.

    • Agent OfBolas

      It looks like you and your friends did not made anything with your boycott.

      I’m a rank&file GW games customer since 1998… and I’m enjoying Age of Sigmar a lot. it’s really nice game and with much more tactical depth than you can think when you see the size of the ruleset.

      Old world will never return, 8th edition was awful, close to unplayable due to lack of overall game and army balance as well as internal inbalance in books, inbalances driven by new releases.

      I can still use my old miniatures to play Age of Sigmar, what’s more – all of them are playable and really good in combat/support. Something that 8th edition can only dream about.

      • Ghachii

        8th edition is 100% perfect and only needed a few small tweaks to become even bigger than 40K – things like cheaper entry points, smaller armies, streamlined rules, progression of the narrative, maybe a new name and logo. If GW had done that then there would have been no need for AoS.

  • DJ860

    Great news! Success for GW financially can only mean good things for their customers and hobby enthusiasts as it means there will be more talent hired, more content put out and more expansion, maybe they’ll even take more risks on projects that might fail.

    • vlad78

      Unless you don’t like AOS nor 8th (AOS lite) style of games. Luckily Blood Bowl is still blood bowl and necromunda 3D looks great.

      • dark-tadpole

        Luckily everyone loves AoS and 8th 40k, never heard a bad word said about either 😉

        • vlad78

          lol
          worse games ever ^^

        • Munn

          More people love them than dislike them. And actually more people love them than liked 1st-7th, HH, or WHFB. Source:This article.

          • dark-tadpole

            I’m one of those people. I love both AoS and 8th 40k. I’ve had more fun playing games at the moment than I have in a long time. I did also enjoy the previous versions but felt there were aspects of the games that could be improved such as magic in Warhammer and Nids in 40k (might be a bit biased there).

            I was making a sarcastic comment (tone of voice doesn’t come across on comments) as there is so much hate at the moment for toy soldiers. There always has been to be fair, but with these editions the split between those who like it and hate it seems huge.

            Not saying that people who hate it are wrong and that they should like it, everyone’s entitled to there opinion. I don’t like coffee all that much some people can’t live without it.

            Ps. People who hate it are wrong. They’re awesome games.

          • Munn

            and tbf to the people who left, there are legitimate, non-trivial reasons to move on to other things if you liked other things but people have a tendency to say ‘lack of tactical depth’ instead of ‘less of a simulation’

  • Parthis

    “The greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have great people we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen.”

    Amen.

    • ZeeLobby

      God. Too true.

    • EnTyme

      Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when whomever that was alluding to read the report?

  • ZeeLobby

    Great on GW. They’ve definitely turned around a stagnant situation and things look booming. Personally I’m still on hold to see if the games regain some depth before I pay their premium pricing, but clearly people love the newer systems so who knows if they’ll ever bring it back. Luckily tabletop gaming is full of choices these days, and it’s cool to see all of it growing and competing.

    • CloakingDonkey

      I think Age of Sigmar is getting to be in a great spot now. If you want you can layer the depth on as much as you want or you can keep it to the 4 pages… why you would, I don’t know but you could. 😉 But with the General’s Handbook, matched play, add some open war cards, add some Firestorm modifiers, turn it into a campaign with Path to Glory, turn it Skirmish.. and then there’s the Malign Portents thing that looks to be adding more rules as well. There really is quite a bit of depth to a game of Age of Sigmar now. At least on par with 40K, if not more.

      And hey as you said, if you want more complexity you can always go for a round of WarmaHordes, Infinity or Malifaux 😉

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. Personally I’m looking for deeper core mechanics. With GW games you can ALWAYS layer more stuff on, hehe, but I’m that doesn’t necessarily make it a more tactical game, just usually more randomized book keeping. I just don’t see myself going back to 40K until vehicle facings, fire arcs, templates and impactful terrain return. I mean those are things that made 40K feel unique instead of just AoS in space. To be honest I’d rather pick up AoS at this point (and might do so) as I think the rules fit better there.

        • Nikita Kuznetsov

          100% This. But I still won’t try AoS any time soon. I look into Kingdomdeath: Monster now.

          • CloakingDonkey

            I didn’t back the kickstarter for that… the 400$ price tag is a bit daunting.

          • ZeeLobby

            I did, to the tune of way too much money. But the stuff holds its value well, and the game is simply a blast. I love the models as well (though they’re pretty weird). Remind me a lot of the more sinister direction of old GW.

          • ZeeLobby

            Dungeon dive type games have definitely taken over my interest in tabletop gaming. i still play some others, but between KDM and Gloomhaven, there is just so much more content and depth than tabletop games. I still play WMH occasionally, and always have my eye open for an alternative (as well as a reason to dust off my GW armies), but I’m pretty happy right now.

        • CloakingDonkey

          Yeah I’m not a huge fan of the new 40K. I played 3 games of it and had enough. It does play a lot like AoS just with more table wide shooting… the shooting phases just take forever and never feel very impactful sadly.

          I would agree, the style of rules fits much better with AoS and makes for a much more enjoyable game there.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I agree. That said, if AoS adds tanks at some point, it’s going to feel weird again. I mean I get why a dragon could have 360 degree view and range, but for vehicles that just totally breaks the immersion for me (unless it’s like a 10/15mm scale). It’s just one of those things that has me picking up other games instead.

          • zeno666

            Its a kids game really

          • Apocryphus

            I think more accurately it’s a game that’s accessible to kids. I don’t think at it’s core AoS is meant to be strictly for kids, but something that kids can play. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, and GW constantly trying to pull in younger and younger audiences is getting annoying.

        • Those are precisely my issues as well. I very badly want them to release a deeper add-on that you could optionally use. For right now I use the one I wrote for my campaigns but fighting the “but its not official” complaint with the group is a pain in my ***.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean even with my basement playing group I get the same response. It used to be easier to push it when there weren’t alternative games, but now everyone is just like “why mess with that when we could play this”. We’ll see, and advanced rules system for both AoS and 40K would be pretty cool. And I personally think it’d be pretty widely adopted and used. We’ve talked about this before, but I truly believe that if more depth was added, all the simplicity lovers would still jump on board.

          • I fully agree. Right now there are just a lot of guys that are pushing the “everything is positive” mantra a little too far, but I think if GW produced an add on that added more intricate cover, facings, etc that that would become the “tournament standard” and few people would complain past a month or so of its release.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, it’s just like adding points to AoS. Prior to it large groups were like “points will ruin the game, blah blah blah”. Now everyone uses them, and they can simply choose not to if they don’t want. That always astonished me. The inability of people who hate certain rules to realize they don’t have to play them in their own groups if they don’t want to. Alternatively it is much harder to build a deeper game within a group, especially if you ever want to play that game outside of it. Much easier to go one way then the other, but probably more expensive for GW, so I guess we’ll see.

          • dark-tadpole

            This always threw me why people seem to complain about more options in a game.
            I’ve heard people complain about power levels in 40k, they are just an option the points costs are still there for people to use. Or you know what don’t use either and play with whatever toy soldiers you have.
            I really like both the AOS and 40k systems at the moment and having the most fun I’ve had in a while playing them, especially 40k. But if they re-introduced optional rules for vehicle facings and more in depth terrain rules I’d be happy to incorporate those into my games.
            If they felt like changing it in AOS so charging units fought first and you can’t target characters unless they’re closest to you like in 40k I’d also be happy with this.

          • Ghachii

            The problem arises when an ‘option’ is introduced that, for whatever reason, becomes the lazy default option for 99% of people. When all other options become sidelined then that’s no longer an option – it’s mandatory and restrictive. The addition of points was always going to become the default because it’s easy and it’s within people’s comfort zones. That doesn’t necessarily mean that AoS is a better experience for having points.

          • Apocryphus

            Genuine question, is it worse off for having points now? I don’t play the game because the lore doesn’t appeal to me, so I have no frame of reference from before points were introduced.

          • Munn

            It’s significantly better off in terms of marketability and gameplay with points. However, it’s also proven that points aren’t mandatory so long as both opponents are familiar with both armies and are more focused on the narrative than the win.

          • Apocryphus

            I would think the narrative would omit points at that stage of play. I admit it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around playing with whatever with no restrictions, but most players I know will abuse the heck out of that.

          • Munn

            Age of Sigmar is most likely a better experience, gameplay wise without points; true. But that’s only if you and a close knit group of friends spend 3-4 months playtesting your armies against each other to get an idea of what’s fair and then don’t ever buy anything new.

          • ZeeLobby

            Definitely agree. I’d rather have them add more, with the idea of creating a unique and deep game, than continue to strip things down. I can always choose the rules I don’t want to personally play with, and find like minded people. I mean I always figure some of the money I pay towards figures and books should be going toward development of the game. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to offer more advanced rules to add a little more balance. Oh well, we’ll see where they take 40K I guess, but I’m pretty much on hold until they decide to add some back.

          • happy_inquisitor

            We already have the city fight rules which go in that direction. Never once heard of a tournament using them. Personally I love those rules and would be happy to see more development in that direction but the hypothesis that tournaments would adopt them if published is pretty weak.

          • As I recall, city fight does not introduce core rule changes. It adds city fight style scenarios.

            I’m talking exclusively universal advanced rules that would apply to all scenarios, not just something like cityfight that would deal only with cityfight.

          • happy_inquisitor

            *pulls out rulebook*
            Additional rules for cover saves, for altering those depending on relative height of units. Also for road movement and grenades. If tournaments wanted better or more sophisticated terrain rules they are right in the rulebook – my conclusion is that tournaments (TOs and players) want nothing of the sort.

            Personally I do want those things. Why the typical tournament player is not asking for them is a question you would have to direct at those who go to tournaments more frequently than me – but what I look for in a game is not quite the same as typical tournament players which is probably why I find the reality of tournament play so utterly dull and boring.

          • THAnk you that was a good response.

            I think because they are couched in the cityfight section and not the core rules section is why the resistance to use them is present.

    • zeno666

      It’ll be interesting to see what happens once they run out of codexes (= easy money).
      So far they have failed quite miserably when they tried to add new stuff to the game (Dark Imperium, Primaris etc).

      • ZeeLobby

        Well, and my guess is they’ll just keep throwing new stuff at the walls to generate impulse sales.

  • Marco

    Long live Warhammer Fantasy and the Old World!

    • Ghachii

      Keep posting my friend, you’re doing great work! I actually nominated you for Warhammer Hero and that medal will surely be on its way any day now! If anything will convince GW to get their heads out of their assess and bring back Warhammer Fantasy it’s bold, enthusiastic, and persuasive campaigns like yours!

    • Chapmandu

      I wonder how long you’ll keep posting this comment. Will you still be posting in a year? 5 years? A decade? Will you still post when new players start to ask what the “old world” was and square bases are a distant memory?

      • Some players already ask what an old world was and why anyone would use square bases.

        • ZeeLobby

          It’s sad they missed out on that era. Sure it had it’s issues but any world that birthed Gotrek and Felix had to be epic.

          • 6th edition WHFB is my favorite ruleset of all time. Especially in the beginning with ravening hordes when things weren’t busted and it was pretty much all about playing the game instead of listbuilding for the win.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, part of me wonders if this is just the natural evolution of gaming. Competitiveness seems to have become one of the major driving principles these days, and it’s caused systems to go crazy, lol

          • Its turned from a hobby into a form of sport now.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I liked 7th but mostly because that was when I got into Tomb Kings. I still haven’t seen a more balanced army book. I know it was 6th Ed it was released for but I played it in 7th.

  • Hugo Rousseau

    You should all stop a moment and think a bit more, theres nothign positive for us consumer to see from these numbers.

    2010 report (year of WFB 8th release): 126m revenue, 16m profit
    2012 report (year of 40k 6th release): 131m revenue, 19m profit
    2014 report (year of 40k 7th release) 123m revenue, 12m profit
    2015 report (year of AOS release) 119m revenue, 16m profit

    notice how those edition sold more? the profit made was way lower than the one they had this year tho.. which means they used to sell things at a lower price. They actually sold less this year and are charging you more than they used to. Dont look at GW like this company getting out of a slump. they are still in a big slump and are release tones of unrefined and overpriced product while hoping one of those things will sell enough so that they can “look good”

    • defensive

      Actually, this is just the 6 month report, not the full year, so it’s not accurate.
      They have earned more in 2017 than any year before.

      You are correct though in a general sense, in which they have a 53% increse in revenue, but a 171% increase in profits.
      The players win in a sense that GW is not goin away anytime soon, if they don’t win where their wallet is concerned…

      • Hugo Rousseau

        I have to admit fault here, I went into a berserk hate against them without considering this is HALF YEAR sorry
        . tho the profit margin is for sure still something to look at yes. because the revenue figure would be way lower if they sold their product to price close to what they used to.

        • AEZ

          Isn’t neccesarily an increase in prices (which we can easily check of course 🙂 )… could be lowering cost too 😀

          • defensive

            Well, the newest DG releases have definitely been more expensive.

            In Australian prices, 10 basic marines are $62, and so were the old 7 man finecast plague marines.
            The newer plastic plague marines are $84 for 7.

            While not only cheaper for them to make, they are also roughly 25% more expensive when they sell them.

          • Xodis

            Which probably has SOMETHING to do with it seeing all the single pose models. Im no sculptor but I remember reading that designing the multi-pose models and bits seemed to take more time therefor more cost associated.

          • Apocryphus

            It’s much harder to make molds for those types of models too and it limits the detail that can be included. I don’t like mono-pose/mono-build models, but it allows things like Mortarion to exist.
            (I realize Mortarion is not really mono-pose but arm swaps are pretty basic and easy to design)

          • happy_inquisitor

            Largely fixed cost base, against which increased revenues have a disproportionate impact on profit.

            I see no real pattern in model prices going up or down, seems like a real mix to the point where it is really hard to discern a pricing policy.

        • euansmith

          Let the rage flow though you!

        • Munn

          I think a decent chunk of that is actually due to the currency thing. GW hasn’t done any currency adjustments despite the fact that the Pound has been in freefall for years. Yes, it is fleecing their consumer base still, but it’s not quite as bad or deliberate as it would be under constant currency.

    • ZeeLobby

      This is definitely true. Anyone can see this in their recent releases. It’s definitely had an impact on my purchasing habits (used to buy almost everything).

  • As much as I miss actual wargaming and am not a fan of the board game direction and collectible card game deckbuilding style base that AOS and 40k sit on now, can’t deny that that is exactly what the gaming community overall wants and reacts positively toward. The numbers don’t lie.

    • CloakingDonkey

      It’s time for historical wargaming my friend. You sound like you’re ready. Get to painting those Napoleonics or Romans. 😉

      • I have a roman force for hail caesar 😀

        • CloakingDonkey

          Very good. 😉 Hail Caesar is a great system. We’re currently working on giving it a little Fantasy add on so we can play our rank and file Fantasy battles with it. I’m already working on a Barbarian Hill Tribe army to meet some Goblins and Undead on the table. Should be good fun with those rules.

          • Yeah if they ever officially release a fantasy add-on to hail caesar I’d be over the moon. Fantasy settings are my preference.

          • Hagwert

            Rick Priestly was showcasing a fantasy version of Hail Ceasar at the last Warlord games open day. He has the rules all worked out he just needs the powers that be at the company to give it the go ahead.

          • Commissar Molotov

            “Do you waff at my fwiend Elfius Maximus?”

          • I’ve heard that for a while now. They need to stop dragging their feet!

        • Matthew Pomeroy

          Persians here 😀

      • ZeeLobby

        Haha. I always thought “where do these historic gamers come from”, and now I just realize it’s a natural progression of gaming, lol.

        • CloakingDonkey

          It absolutely is. 15 years ago it was nothing but 40k, WFB and Warmachine at our club. Then came Flames of War… then Bolt Action… then SAGA… now most of the club is playing some kind of historical game and there’s a sizable following for Napoleonics and Ancients with Black Powder and Hail Caesar. 😉

          I think as gamers get older, they get the patience and appreciation for the historicals a bit more

          • ZeeLobby

            It just feels like your doing more. I agree. And I do think patience is it. I don’t mind playing a 4 hour game, as long as it has depth and cool mechanics. I don’t enjoy playing a 2 hour game with minimal amounts of either.

        • I actually started with historic gaming and then progressed into warhammer fantasy in the 90s. But yeah now a days, historicals are pretty much the domain of the old white haired guys and they are played in basements and garages out of the public eye.

        • happy_inquisitor

          Is it? I spent 30 years playing historicals on and off before I picked up my first 40K model. I *nearly* got into it years back but when I watched a game all I saw was red marines hitting spikey marines with chainswords and I thought it was horribly one-dimensional and dull. Obviously for some players that would have been the golden age but clearly not for me!

    • Munn

      lol, get over yourself. I’m sorry it doesn’t take 700 pages of rules to play a game anymore; or does ‘actual wargaming’ just mean ‘opaque, dull, pointless, boring, frustrating garbage’?

      • Apocryphus

        Wow, bad day? There’s no need to get hostile and insulting over something like this. Some of us like a bit more crunch to our games than what certain companies have on offer, it’s by no means some sort of display of superiority or anything.

      • Except that nowhere did I mention 700 pages of rules being required. lol. Get over yourself.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Good to see GW in good financial shape and continue the upward trend of the last couple of years. Positive for anyone invested in the hobby; from the customers, to the staff, and the actual investors. In the mean time….let the armchair analysis begin…

  • Nikita Kuznetsov

    Actually these financial results give nothing to us. We don’t have information about income divided on product by product basis. Division of income by sales channel is uninformative.

    Also don’t be delusioned by GW stocks market price. Simplest analyze method P/E (stock price to earnings) give us value between 50 to 60 (you need 50 to 60 years to return stock price in dividends) for GW stocks. It is a bubble. And he will burst eventually.

    • ZeeLobby

      I do definitely think it’s a bubble to some degree. AoS + 8th edition definitely spiked it. I’m more interested in next years results, and the year after that. That’s when we’ll see the true mettle of GW. Will they accept less profitable spikes to support a better game, or will they try to keep things in a state of constant upheaval to drive impulse sales.

      • Good point. I suppose we will see 🙂

    • Munn

      So how are you rationalizing away the flat 50% increase in revenue? Yeah, stock price is obviously inflated, but it’s inflated because speculators are noticing the insane revenue growth and making bets.

      • Nikita Kuznetsov

        I think revenue spike mainly comes from 3 things:
        – 40k reboot with 8th edition. From what I heard in the Web (mountain of salt included) GW sold at least 350000 of 8ed starter sets (Dark Imperium) and 450000 copies of standalone rulebook. Even this rumour is a half true it is still a wast amount of money;
        – royalties from various video games (Total War: Warhammer and Warhammer 2 to say at least) and other IP. GW get a lot of money from licenses in recent years. My estimate is between 5 to 10 millions of pounds;
        – surplus from currency exchange rates. GW greatly wins from converting much of overseas purchases (direct orders from webstore) from prices in pounds to prices in US dollars. Pound lost a lot against USD. For example, I live in Russia, and when this change (Pound to USD) happened all GW products are +40% up for me and other customers who must convert their roubles to USD but not to British Pound. My estimate this give GW from 10 to 20 millions of pounds.

        Note what GW already has printed a half of 8ed codexes, another half will be printed during second half of bussiness year. These merchandise are must buy for all players who have armies. I think we will see small decrease of income (comparing to the first half of BY) in the second half of BY (5-10%). And a great decrease of income in the next year (10-25%).

        Loss of Alan Bligh was a tremendous hit to the GW in my opinion. Even mistake with W40K 8ed reboot could be cured and used to improve the situation in the future (I have some working variants), but Alan Bligh death is simply an irreparable loss.

    • happy_inquisitor

      Did you even read the article before commenting? Or are you struggling with what p/e is?

      Earnings per share 97.6 (pence)
      Share price 2515 (pence)
      p/e ratio 25.9

      This is at the high end of “average” for p/e rations – which looks perfectly reasonable for a company showing strong revenue growth.

      Despite the fact that it has gone past my personal “investable” price I can see why others would consider it reasonable to buy at ~£25 per share. Even on a pure dividend basis (this is traditionally a dividend stock) the return is better than many alternative investments in the current ultra-low interest environment.

      • Nikita Kuznetsov

        I made the calculation two month ago using actual stock price and earnings to that moment. P/E was around 59,7 if I recall correctly.

        After this report GW stocks price will drop to compensate the loss of company capital for the dividends payment.

        P.S. I also think GW have habit to pay higher dividends than market average. It is my feeling, I don’t have resources to prove it.

        • happy_inquisitor

          Yes that is what some fairly useless investment sites were quoting a few months back. For a company on rapid sales and profit growth taking earnings from many months ago vs a current share price is just pure FAIL. That algorithm only works if you assume relatively flat earnings/profits.

          Clearly investors at that time must have been factoring in likely revenue and profit increases – as the p/e ratio is right in the “normal” range from this report they must have been factoring that in quite well. It is a tad on the high side but that itself is normal for a company undergoing rapid growth.

          And for dividends you are correct, historically GW have been a dividend stock and they restated that policy in their last full year statement.

          (full disclosure: I have been following this closely because I purchased a few thousand pounds of GW stock last year. I just wish I had more confidence and invested a lot more)

  • eMtoN

    Funny thing: if they could get stock to my flgs then they would sell more. Half their line is unavailable.

  • Hagwert

    I think it’s only fair to point out that lots of people buy AOS minis to play and be kit bashed for other game systems. As someone who plays Kings of War, Dragon Rampant , WHFB 8th and Frostgrave I see vast amounts of AOS minis and parts being used to represent troops and races in these various games. This will obviously boost GW sales of AOS figures and kits but does not necessarily mean huge numbers of people are actually playing AOS.

    • Munn

      lol, rationalize however you want but you have to face the fact that AoS, 40k, HH, and the Star Wars ship games dominate the market. KoW, WHFB, and Frostgrave are niches within the niche and no one’s ever even heard of dragons rampart. There’s no way those games make up more than 10% of AoS’s sales.

  • Admiral Raptor

    Not surprising considering the good state of both of GW’s main games. I love being able to play a decent sized game of 40k or Sigmar in two hours or less. It has also been nice to see the return of the specialist classics (Bloodbowl in particular). Shadespire too was a nice surprise.

    Keep up the good work GW!

  • Benandorf

    Well, I am now entirely convinced the problem was their old CEO. Since he left, GW has had better interaction with the community, their profits and revenue are all up, and honestly they seem to be providing more value for money with a lot of their new bundles. They’re even actively balancing 40k!

    Never thought I’d see it. This is a weird timeline we’re in.

  • Ed Butlar

    They will bring back wfb, not now but when it’s seen as cult and you will buy it by the bucket load.