Personally I find a lot of the Xenos armies well supported model-wise. More units does not equate to a better army, and more often than not just means there is more crap to use and be disappointed by. In AoS I play FEC and more or less every unit I have a use for and I enjoy that a lot.

My biggest issue with the state of the Xenos is more that too much of the crap has either been removed(like the Drukhari HQ and elites) or is sitting ugly in metal or resin(Drukhari and Craftworld stuff).

PenitentJake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

If you want to get technical, Harlequins had a separate army list in 1st ed back when the custodes was represented by a single entry of a leather daddy in a dong helmet...

Holy gak I'm dying.

If there was any time we might actually see more Xenos models it is now. I'm sure GW still has Primaris Bikes / Flyers, but at the rate they're going they will need to tap innto other areas..

All current information points to this being incorrect. GW have no interest in releasing anything but Marine models. Once they’ve tapped out on their Primaris, they’ll no doubt do more CSM stuff (EC, WE perhaps). Xenos are, as always, fethed.

So look, here's the evidence you say doesn't exist: GW just released an Elder vs Eldar box with a pure Eldar supplement after resculpting four eldar units in plastic. Also, December's PA is nids- sure there will be some marine content, but there will be Xenos content too.

How many space marines are there in Blackstone Fortress again? Oh yeah, none. The army that's being released this month... Sure, not Xenos, but not Space Marine either, right?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Xenos aren't under-supported- they are... So far. But it is absolutely ridiculous of you to claim that GW has no interest in releasing anything but space marines the month after a major eldar release and the month before new content for Nids.

Back to Harlequins- remember the jetbikes with the sculpted mask canopies? I remember walkers too, but I don't remember if they were actual models or kitbashes of Wrathlords and sculpted bike canopies. Either way, they looked AMAZING and I wish we would get them back.

Also, please remember that codices are more than units. Sure, Quins only have 8 units, but having a dex is what gives them Masque forms, WL Traits, Strats, and Relics. They either wouldn't have any, or at least they would have fewer if they got rolled into someone else's dex.

Is that a joke? Outside of the Spiritseer model and the one in BSF, Eldar haven't received a release in over 6 years. The book is a shadow of what the marines got at the same time regardless of whether it was a low tier supplement or not. I would say Xenos do get screwed.

4 resculpts split between 2 factions is a major release compared to what Marines get on the regular.

IIRC during Phoenix Risings release Marines both had more and better releases than all Eldar.

PenitentJake wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

If you want to get technical, Harlequins had a separate army list in 1st ed back when the custodes was represented by a single entry of a leather daddy in a dong helmet...

Holy gak I'm dying.

If there was any time we might actually see more Xenos models it is now. I'm sure GW still has Primaris Bikes / Flyers, but at the rate they're going they will need to tap innto other areas..

All current information points to this being incorrect. GW have no interest in releasing anything but Marine models. Once they’ve tapped out on their Primaris, they’ll no doubt do more CSM stuff (EC, WE perhaps). Xenos are, as always, fethed.

So look, here's the evidence you say doesn't exist: GW just released an Elder vs Eldar box with a pure Eldar supplement after resculpting four eldar units in plastic. Also, December's PA is nids- sure there will be some marine content, but there will be Xenos content too.

How many space marines are there in Blackstone Fortress again? Oh yeah, none. The army that's being released this month... Sure, not Xenos, but not Space Marine either, right?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Xenos aren't under-supported- they are... So far. But it is absolutely ridiculous of you to claim that GW has no interest in releasing anything but space marines the month after a major eldar release and the month before new content for Nids.

You might have missed it in your eagerness to defend GW but we were discussing MODEL releases man, not just rules stuff.

Unless you know better than all those part numbers for the leaked order form that was shared, it seems likely that Nids get sweet FA in terms of models in PA3. BA are getting an updated Mephiston, as we know. Infinitely more models.

We know that no Xenos feature in PA2 at all. No models.

PA1, though it had a focus on Eldar was pretty weak. One character and a unit update for 2 factions somewhat pales in comparison to the mountain of SM releases of late. To be honest PA1 supports my point, given the bloody awful effort made in the model and rules released for said book.

Its hilarious that you use Blackstone Fortress as some weird qualifier that Marines haven't had that many releases. You've no doubt seen the release numbers. They're obscene.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Personally I find a lot of the Xenos armies well supported model-wise. More units does not equate to a better army, and more often than not just means there is more crap to use and be disappointed by. In AoS I play FEC and more or less every unit I have a use for and I enjoy that a lot.

My biggest issue with the state of the Xenos is more that too much of the crap has either been removed(like the Drukhari HQ and elites) or is sitting ugly in metal or resin(Drukhari and Craftworld stuff).

I'm sorry, but this sounds like some real entitled gak.

It's like when I see marine players legit complain that they have too many units and some of them inevitably end up going unused. As a harlequin player let me tell you, I would KILL to have a bunch of units to choose from even if some are less stellar than others. Nobody plays pure harlequins to be competitive. They're not. What ticks me off the most is that every harlequin army is identical. Because it has to be. Because you have zero options. It's not unique. You can't personalize it. It's not just awful from a gaming perspective, but it's awful from a collecting and hobby perspective too.

Besides, 8th edition has done a pretty decent job so far making every unit at least somewhat usable.

Karol wrote:
But do they get new stuff? SW got a primaris Lt as their 8th model. DA too. GK got voldus, BA got an Lt and a termintor captin maybe?

That is hardly back breaking number of models to design. Comparing to that GSC got a whole new line. eldar got a unit and banshee queen, dark eldar got the incubi king and incubi.

Technicly besides totaly new armies like SoB or GSC, no one is getting a lot of new models.

am not even sure if GW didn't produce more models for AoS in the last 2 years. Heck they produced like 30+ models for mini games, few people play. How much time was spend on making models for that whole blackstone game, and how many people play it comparing to a normal w40k faction?

If they took the chaos stuff out of it, and made a renegade army out of it, the sells would be much better.

So Marine subfactions got their own models - yet again.

How many specific Craftworlds got new models, Tyranid Swarms, Sisters Orders, Knight Households, Guard Regiments, Kabals, Cults, Dynasties, Septs, etc etc

And thats on top of the verer growing pile of new generic Marine models

Yeah None EXCEPT Marines is getting a pile of models - as always

Yeah, it's basically the same. I mean, we had that HUGE gsc release for xenos! They got

-1 infantry kit
-1 bike kit
-1 small vehicle kit
-8 characters

in 8th, marines* have only gotten

-8 infantry kits
-2 small vehicle kits
-2 large vehicle kits, plus 1 variant kit (executioner)
-16 generic characters
-9 chapter-specific characters
-1 forgeworld superheavy
-Upgrade sprues for all major chapters

That was SO MUCH stuff in that GSC release! It was a HUGE release!

(By the way, all those releases count as releases for like 8 factions when you complain about how much there are, but they don't count as releases for any faction besides Codex SM when I want more stuff for my special snowflake chapter that gets to use all that stuff)

*Mandatory Karol Disclaimer: Not Grey Knights, you get to hang with the ignored factions now apparently because of, I presume, a big silver paint shortage at GW hq?

Whilst it still pales in comparison to the Marine releases, I imagine most Xeno players would be delighted to receive something approaching the GSC release. The problem is that they haven't.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that one GSC release amounted to more models than exist in the entire Harlequin army.

Eldar are still languishing with ancient models, but look GW updated all of 2 of them! Now they can be left to languish for another decade.

Dark Eldar are still missing most of their HQ section. So what did they get when GW finally remembered that they existed? 2 re-sculpts of existing units. And that was it. Hey, remember the 5 special characters you removed from out codex after 5th edition? How about a model for one of those? Or what about the half-dozen generic HQs who've bitten the dust over the years? You know, like the ones with mobility options other than walking. How about a model for any of those? No? Too much work? Guess I'll just sit here and watch as you disgorge an endless parade of new marine models.

I mean, I wouldn't even need new models if it wasn't for your godawful policy of no-model-no-rules. If you'd care to just give me the rules for the aforementioned units than I'd be more than happy to convert them whilst you vomit Marine models from every orifice. But no, that's not an option either, is it? Because you are simultaneously terrified of 3rd-party manufacturers making the models you can't be arsed making, yet at the same time apparently convinced that those models won't sell in the first place.


/rant

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it's basically the same. I mean, we had that HUGE gsc release for xenos! They got

-1 infantry kit
-1 bike kit
-1 small vehicle kit
-8 characters

in 8th, marines* have only gotten

-8 infantry kits
-2 small vehicle kits
-2 large vehicle kits, plus 1 variant kit (executioner)
-16 generic characters
-9 chapter-specific characters
-1 forgeworld superheavy
-Upgrade sprues for all major chapters

That was SO MUCH stuff in that GSC release! It was a HUGE release!

(By the way, all those releases count as releases for like 8 factions when you complain about how much there are, but they don't count as releases for any faction besides Codex SM when I want more stuff for my special snowflake chapter that gets to use all that stuff)

*Mandatory Karol Disclaimer: Not Grey Knights, you get to hang with the ignored factions now apparently because of, I presume, a big silver paint shortage at GW hq?

I don't think it's quite right to compare just GSC to all marines considering all the stuff below that isn't marines, but also not always xenos.

I get it though - everyone wants more of their stuff. I would like GW to stop with the Lieutenants and make some unique xenos characters, but I imagine a stand alone run for a model that doesn't get any new rules is a lot riskier when it applies to only 3-5% of the customer base.

Im the only one a little tired of the spam of characters GW is doing? I assume, by an economical point of view they are great for gw and is more easy to find an extremely specific spot, rulewise, for a single character than for a full unit, but I always find variety in my lists come from the units, the characters are just an extra.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it's basically the same. I mean, we had that HUGE gsc release for xenos! They got

-1 infantry kit
-1 bike kit
-1 small vehicle kit
-8 characters

in 8th, marines* have only gotten

-8 infantry kits
-2 small vehicle kits
-2 large vehicle kits, plus 1 variant kit (executioner)
-16 generic characters
-9 chapter-specific characters
-1 forgeworld superheavy
-Upgrade sprues for all major chapters

That was SO MUCH stuff in that GSC release! It was a HUGE release!

(By the way, all those releases count as releases for like 8 factions when you complain about how much there are, but they don't count as releases for any faction besides Codex SM when I want more stuff for my special snowflake chapter that gets to use all that stuff)

*Mandatory Karol Disclaimer: Not Grey Knights, you get to hang with the ignored factions now apparently because of, I presume, a big silver paint shortage at GW hq?

I don't think it's quite right to compare just GSC to all marines considering all the stuff below that isn't marines, but also not always xenos.

I get it though - everyone wants more of their stuff. I would like GW to stop with the Lieutenants and make some unique xenos characters, but I imagine a stand alone run for a model that doesn't get any new rules is a lot riskier when it applies to only 3-5% of the customer base.

Marines are a subfaction of the Imperium - Genestealers are a subfaction of Tyranids so its a legtimate comparision

Eldar are a full faction so its far to compare Marines to Craftworld or Dark Eldar or the Individual Chapters to the individual Craftworlds, Kabals etc.

Where is this bull gak 3-5% xenos representation completely made up, not in anyway based on facts stat come from?

The xenos factions aren't as small a proportion of the player base as some of you think and the reasons behind their perceived lack of popularity are largely down to GW themselves. GW only makes marines for a quarter then gets surprised when only marines sell that quarter. Who'd have thunk it?

I remember the days when Eldar and Orks vyed with Chaos for second most popular faction. So much so Orks were the big bad of the 2nd end starter set.

 vipoid wrote:

I mean, I wouldn't even need new models if it wasn't for your godawful policy of no-model-no-rules. If you'd care to just give me the rules for the aforementioned units than I'd be more than happy to convert them whilst you vomit Marine models from every orifice. But no, that's not an option either, is it? Because you are simultaneously terrified of 3rd-party manufacturers making the models you can't be arsed making, yet at the same time apparently convinced that those models won't sell in the first place.


/rant

It isn't that simple. Companies need to protect their IP or else they'll lose court cases by setting a precedent. It's gakky, but it is a cold reality of the economic system we live in.

IP is literally GW's whole business.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it's basically the same. I mean, we had that HUGE gsc release for xenos! They got

-1 infantry kit
-1 bike kit
-1 small vehicle kit
-8 characters

in 8th, marines* have only gotten

-8 infantry kits
-2 small vehicle kits
-2 large vehicle kits, plus 1 variant kit (executioner)
-16 generic characters
-9 chapter-specific characters
-1 forgeworld superheavy
-Upgrade sprues for all major chapters

That was SO MUCH stuff in that GSC release! It was a HUGE release!

(By the way, all those releases count as releases for like 8 factions when you complain about how much there are, but they don't count as releases for any faction besides Codex SM when I want more stuff for my special snowflake chapter that gets to use all that stuff)

*Mandatory Karol Disclaimer: Not Grey Knights, you get to hang with the ignored factions now apparently because of, I presume, a big silver paint shortage at GW hq?

Compared what tyranids have gotten. It is pretty substantial.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Where is this bull gak 3-5% xenos representation completely made up, not in anyway based on facts stat come from?

The xenos factions aren't as small a proportion of the player base as some of you think and the reasons behind their perceived lack of popularity are largely down to GW themselves. GW only makes marines for a quarter then gets surprised when only marines sell that quarter. Who'd have thunk it?

I remember the days when Eldar and Orks vyed with Chaos for second most popular faction. So much so Orks were the big bad of the 2nd end starter set.

Not 3-5% all Xenos. 3-5% of that particular army. If GW makes an Ork Lieutenant then all the marines, daemons, guard, knights, eldar, fish heads, and bugs literally do not give a gak about that model.

[/spoiler]

Even when you list them out individually and add in extras like the Lord of Change which were not released in 8th, the amount of stuff that *just loyalist* marines got is basically equivalent to what *everyone not in power armor* got, combined. Between DG and new CSM, spiky marines got nearly as much - 7 infantry kits, 3 small vehicle kits, 3 large vehicle kits, and 9 character kits.

My specific purpose here was to debunk the oft-brought up talking point of that "huge" GSC release that we got which supposedly means there is no favoritism on display, to show exactly how huge that release was compared to what we've seen for loyalist marines throughout 8th. It was half the size of one of the two waves of primaris marines we got.

The fact that people are taking a release that is 2 5-man infantry kits and 2 named character scupts - for two completely different factions - and calling it a "Wave" somehow putting it on par with the latest "wave" of primaris that was 4 times that size just shows the weird hypocrisy of scale in peoples' minds.

the_scotsman wrote:

Even when you list them out individually and add in extras like the Lord of Change which were not released in 8th, the amount of stuff that *just loyalist* marines got is basically equivalent to what *everyone not in power armor* got, combined. Between DG and new CSM, spiky marines got nearly as much - 7 infantry kits, 3 small vehicle kits, 3 large vehicle kits, and 9 character kits.

My specific purpose here was to debunk the oft-brought up talking point of that "huge" GSC release that we got which supposedly means there is no favoritism on display, to show exactly how huge that release was compared to what we've seen for loyalist marines throughout 8th. It was half the size of one of the two waves of primaris marines we got.

The fact that people are taking a release that is 2 5-man infantry kits and 2 named character scupts - for two completely different factions - and calling it a "Wave" somehow putting it on par with the latest "wave" of primaris that was 4 times that size just shows the weird hypocrisy of scale in peoples' minds.

I'm not really disagreeing. I want to see more Eldar kits. I think we just miss the proportionality of it and people get upset at seeing marines, but there are a lot of marine armies in the game. As an example - DG players might not see anything for a year or more (rightfully so) and they care just as much about Primaris as Eldar do.

PA is certainly not a wave.

GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

They are Always releasing new range of models for Marines esepcially when you include the Forgeworld Models that pretty much don;t bother making anything except Marines - so the production capacity of two entire companies is dedicated to one Super Sub Faction - I wonder why people buy more of them.

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

And next time we will eventually see 2W Primaris Cult Marines.
PA all the way. Nothing for the scum Xenos.
If you play Aeldari smart, its still a viable army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Where is this bull gak 3-5% xenos representation completely made up, not in anyway based on facts stat come from?

The xenos factions aren't as small a proportion of the player base as some of you think and the reasons behind their perceived lack of popularity are largely down to GW themselves. GW only makes marines for a quarter then gets surprised when only marines sell that quarter. Who'd have thunk it?

I remember the days when Eldar and Orks vyed with Chaos for second most popular faction. So much so Orks were the big bad of the 2nd end starter set.

Not 3-5% all Xenos. 3-5% of that particular army. If GW makes an Ork Lieutenant then all the marines, daemons, guard, knights, eldar, fish heads, and bugs literally do not give a gak about that model.

Yea, and where's that figure from?

Made up right?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Where is this bull gak 3-5% xenos representation completely made up, not in anyway based on facts stat come from?

The xenos factions aren't as small a proportion of the player base as some of you think and the reasons behind their perceived lack of popularity are largely down to GW themselves. GW only makes marines for a quarter then gets surprised when only marines sell that quarter. Who'd have thunk it?

I remember the days when Eldar and Orks vyed with Chaos for second most popular faction. So much so Orks were the big bad of the 2nd end starter set.

Not 3-5% all Xenos. 3-5% of that particular army. If GW makes an Ork Lieutenant then all the marines, daemons, guard, knights, eldar, fish heads, and bugs literally do not give a gak about that model.

Yea, and where's that figure from?

Made up right?

Based on current tournament attendance

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Where is this bull gak 3-5% xenos representation completely made up, not in anyway based on facts stat come from?

The xenos factions aren't as small a proportion of the player base as some of you think and the reasons behind their perceived lack of popularity are largely down to GW themselves. GW only makes marines for a quarter then gets surprised when only marines sell that quarter. Who'd have thunk it?

I remember the days when Eldar and Orks vyed with Chaos for second most popular faction. So much so Orks were the big bad of the 2nd end starter set.

Not 3-5% all Xenos. 3-5% of that particular army. If GW makes an Ork Lieutenant then all the marines, daemons, guard, knights, eldar, fish heads, and bugs literally do not give a gak about that model.

Yea, and where's that figure from?

Made up right?

Sure, it would be a guess. Disregarding add-on armies like Ynnari or SOS there are 32 factions. An ork model would appeal to 1 out of 32 or 3%. Consider then that it seems that marines are the most popular army and you're going to skew that number a bit more. A single stupid primaris lieutenant appeals to 11 of them.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, it would be a guess.

So you don't need me to tell you that it is also meaningless?

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, it would be a guess.

So you don't need me to tell you that it is also meaningless?

Only if you think it's possible for individual Xenos to be more popular than a standard deviation would assume. The point still stands regardless how popular you might think certain armies are - they're still going to have less broad appeal than marines, which is why we get talentless lieutenants.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, it would be a guess.

So you don't need me to tell you that it is also meaningless?

Only if you think it's possible for individual Xenos to be more popular than a standard deviation would assume. The point still stands regardless how popular you might think certain armies are - they're still going to have less broad appeal than marines, which is why we get talentless lieutenants.

True enough, the counter-point, of course, is that it's actually bad for GW's profit margins and 40k as a whole because of all the potential Xenos customers lost due to the lack of support for such factions.

I've not seen as many Eldar players around here since the first PA release. I wonder if GW didn't lose hobbyists.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

It's the most popular because GW has data on what sells and new marine releases sell them most so they keep making more marine crap.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

Let me guess you are going to do the "Marines are only more popular because marketing" routine.

An argument built on a a very bad assumption:. GW is driving consumer preferences. You know rather than just reacting to them by doubling down on what already sells.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

It's the most popular because GW has data on what sells and new marine releases sell them most so they keep making more marine crap.

I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because Marines get all the support and all the resource and all the new kits and feature in all the starter sets and have the best rules now and have the most cross-compatible models and have always been pushed by GW etc etc etc

Eh. I don't think players like having other players tell them about why they shouldn't have any more releases for not being as popular as Space Marines.

From and Sales and Marketing perspective I think GW have made a classic mistake that may gain them profits at the expense of longer term market share.

For example, the washing brands, Persil, Ariel and Daz are owned by one company. With the right marketing push its possible to drastically increase the sales of say Persil, but this comes at the expense of Daz and Ariel. In the short term this can even increase profits but what happens is that the Ariel and Daz customers who did not switch to Persil change to other non-owned brands, thus damaging market share.

Shareholders however only know that they want more. GW could have a bumper Christmas, beat expected earnings and create an excellent opportunity for senior management to sell stock options. This is at least the cycle I've seen many times and often document in the financial press.

What follows is simply the end of the current business cycle as share-holders leave once they realize the company can't squeeze out anymore growth. A similar thing has already happened to the Computer game publishers. The cycle then starts again, hopefully 9th edition will be a good re-boot.

 Gareth_Evans wrote:
From and Sales and Marketing perspective I think GW have made a classic mistake that may gain them profits at the expense of longer term market share.

For example, the washing brands, Persil, Ariel and Daz are owned by one company. With the right marketing push its possible to drastically increase the sales of say Persil, but this comes at the expense of Daz and Ariel. In the short term this can even increase profits but what happens is that the Ariel and Daz customers who did not switch to Persil change to other non-owned brands, thus damaging market share.

Shareholders however only know that they want more. GW could have a bumper Christmas, beat expected earnings and create an excellent opportunity for senior management to sell stock options. This is at least the cycle I've seen many times and often document in the financial press.

What follows is simply the end of the current business cycle as share-holders leave once they realize the company can't squeeze out anymore growth. A similar thing has already happened to the Computer game publishers. The cycle then starts again, hopefully 9th edition will be a good re-boot.

GW operates on dividends, so they're incentive is to hold shares as long as they don't drop dramatically.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I mean, I wouldn't even need new models if it wasn't for your godawful policy of no-model-no-rules. If you'd care to just give me the rules for the aforementioned units than I'd be more than happy to convert them whilst you vomit Marine models from every orifice. But no, that's not an option either, is it? Because you are simultaneously terrified of 3rd-party manufacturers making the models you can't be arsed making, yet at the same time apparently convinced that those models won't sell in the first place.


/rant

It isn't that simple. Companies need to protect their IP or else they'll lose court cases by setting a precedent. It's gakky, but it is a cold reality of the economic system we live in.

IP is literally GW's whole business.

So why is it fine for them to mix two GK kits to create a Grand Master Dreadknight, but not fine for them to mix two DE kits to create, say, a winged Archon?

Why is it fine for Conscripts, Infantry, Veterans, Heavy Weapon Teams, Special Weapon Teams etc. to all use the same kit, yet suddenly it becomes an issue when it comes to Kabalites and Trueborn sharing a kit?

Because this is part of my problem - even discounting that GW makes far more models for some factions than for others, the no-model-no-rules "rule" is still not enforced remotely equally.

Current tournament attendance is a terrible metric for overall play of an army. A person with an army that is bad in the meta probably isn't going to tournaments, or at the very least is using one of their other, stronger armies for tournaments.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

It's the most popular because GW has data on what sells and new marine releases sell them most so they keep making more marine crap.

I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because Marines get all the support and all the resource and all the new kits and feature in all the starter sets and have the best rules now and have the most cross-compatible models and have always been pushed by GW etc etc etc

I think if we had access to the data - it would be pretty obvious why they make more marine kits than any other army. We don't have access to that data so you could easily make the point that marines are most popular because they make the most marine kits...BUT WHY? How would that make any sense for GW to do that?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GSC probably has the most new models since 7th edition compared to any other army except primaris marines. It is by comparison "huge". Ofc marines/CSM get most of the new stuff. They make up over half the players and they literally released a whole new line of models for them.

We've pivoted to The Third Apologetic I see.

Apologetic 1: Marines don't get lots of stuff, what has *insert minor marine subfaction here* gotten?

Apologetic 2: Marines DEFINITELY have not gotten more stuff than other armies, look at those huge GSC/daemons/orks/sisters which haven't happened yet so you can't DISprove that they will get tons of stuff releases!

Apologetic 3: Git Gud defense, but for....buying models?

The point I am making is they just released a new line of their most popular army. OFC they are getting the most releases atm. Who knows in the future.

Why is it the most popular?

It's the most popular because GW has data on what sells and new marine releases sell them most so they keep making more marine crap.

I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because Marines get all the support and all the resource and all the new kits and feature in all the starter sets and have the best rules now and have the most cross-compatible models and have always been pushed by GW etc etc etc

I think if we had access to the data - it would be pretty obvious why they make more marine kits than any other army. We don't have access to that data so you could easily make the point that marines are most popular because they make the most marine kits...BUT WHY? How would that make any sense for GW to do that?

Because it's safe. That's basic capitalism. Bank on an original idea, and you might get A New Hope - but you might also get Waterworld. Bank on a very, very safe, minor variant on something you know your consumers are already consuming, and you'll be safe. But every movie ever made from now on with any budget might be a superhero movie.

I don't doubt at some point in the misty past, all armies were given relatively the same support and marines were the most popular, thus beginning the cycle of overrepresentation. I also don't doubt that that time was like...1990.

But since then, their MASSIVE, MASSIVE overrepresentation in the lore, model releases, rules releases, starter boxes, and faction count has influenced their popularity.

It's not exactly scientific but according to a poll taken on dakkadakka a few years back, which means based on this community, loyalist Space Marines of all types made up something like 35% of the player base.

let's assume there's some skew and guess that Marines make up 30% (TBH I suspect there where less Marine players here on average, given how vocal the "we hate marines" community here is I suspect they drive off marine fans) So, you have 30% of your player base, spread across, 4 codices, (and we can argue as to what the blood angels, dark angels etc SHOULD be, but that's not fething RELEVANT, as far as GW is concerned they are seperate and distinct armies and thats the end of that) so, a full third of your player base plays one of 4 armies, and you've got a series of releases that can be used ACROSS all those armies, why wouldn't you pump out releases that can be used all by them, in a fair number of things.

to those who think BA/DA/SW shouldn't exist as seperate codices etc, I've got news for you. they do.

Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

I think it's completely reasonable to assume that Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are the 1st and 2nd most popular 40k factions. The margin doesn't matter too much in this discussion. Games Workshop are also giving more attention and kits to Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines more than anyone else. I think this is also a fair assumption. It makes sense for the most popular and best-selling factions to get additional kits and be 1st priority when it comes to new releases. But be honest with yourself when I ask, do you all seriously believe that other factions will get a similar treatment that Space Marines got with their supplements and new codex? I suspect we will see Chaos legions get some sort of supplements, and if we are being optimistic, Eldar could too. But, say, Ad Mech or Orks? I doubt it. My point isn't regarding power levels, or how everyone doesn't get the same amount of releases. Space Marines and Chaos will sell more kits and I get that. However the disparity, and the years of waiting for anything of significance is something many players praising Games Workshop for moving away from. Yet I see a lot of these same people on here actively hand-waving other people's concerns about being excluded from content. It's kind of shocking how certain members of the community, who speak to the encouraging positivity of it, would engage in something as harmful as wanting others not to get anything new. Plenty of players are pretty jealous of how much some factions get each year, and there's a good reason for that. Everyone should want a better representation in the releases that Games Workshop puts out. Not just those that suffer the most throughout it. If Games Workshop really are doing as financially well as their sales figures suggest, then they can certainly afford something as simple as this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I mean, I wouldn't even need new models if it wasn't for your godawful policy of no-model-no-rules. If you'd care to just give me the rules for the aforementioned units than I'd be more than happy to convert them whilst you vomit Marine models from every orifice. But no, that's not an option either, is it? Because you are simultaneously terrified of 3rd-party manufacturers making the models you can't be arsed making, yet at the same time apparently convinced that those models won't sell in the first place.


/rant

It isn't that simple. Companies need to protect their IP or else they'll lose court cases by setting a precedent. It's gakky, but it is a cold reality of the economic system we live in.

IP is literally GW's whole business.

So why is it fine for them to mix two GK kits to create a Grand Master Dreadknight, but not fine for them to mix two DE kits to create, say, a winged Archon?

Why is it fine for Conscripts, Infantry, Veterans, Heavy Weapon Teams, Special Weapon Teams etc. to all use the same kit, yet suddenly it becomes an issue when it comes to Kabalites and Trueborn sharing a kit?

Because this is part of my problem - even discounting that GW makes far more models for some factions than for others, the no-model-no-rules "rule" is still not enforced remotely equally.

GW is inconsistent that's why.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I mean, I wouldn't even need new models if it wasn't for your godawful policy of no-model-no-rules. If you'd care to just give me the rules for the aforementioned units than I'd be more than happy to convert them whilst you vomit Marine models from every orifice. But no, that's not an option either, is it? Because you are simultaneously terrified of 3rd-party manufacturers making the models you can't be arsed making, yet at the same time apparently convinced that those models won't sell in the first place.


/rant

It isn't that simple. Companies need to protect their IP or else they'll lose court cases by setting a precedent. It's gakky, but it is a cold reality of the economic system we live in.

IP is literally GW's whole business.

So why is it fine for them to mix two GK kits to create a Grand Master Dreadknight, but not fine for them to mix two DE kits to create, say, a winged Archon?

Why is it fine for Conscripts, Infantry, Veterans, Heavy Weapon Teams, Special Weapon Teams etc. to all use the same kit, yet suddenly it becomes an issue when it comes to Kabalites and Trueborn sharing a kit?

Because this is part of my problem - even discounting that GW makes far more models for some factions than for others, the no-model-no-rules "rule" is still not enforced remotely equally.

It's hard for third parties to replicate all the pieces to make a GMDK and/or its not financially worthwhile. GW was also pot committed on certain units. A winged Archon gets into muddier territory that other companies would gladly jump on. It's down to opportunity cost.

 Gareth_Evans wrote:
From and Sales and Marketing perspective I think GW have made a classic mistake that may gain them profits at the expense of longer term market share.

For example, the washing brands, Persil, Ariel and Daz are owned by one company. With the right marketing push its possible to drastically increase the sales of say Persil, but this comes at the expense of Daz and Ariel. In the short term this can even increase profits but what happens is that the Ariel and Daz customers who did not switch to Persil change to other non-owned brands, thus damaging market share.

Shareholders however only know that they want more. GW could have a bumper Christmas, beat expected earnings and create an excellent opportunity for senior management to sell stock options. This is at least the cycle I've seen many times and often document in the financial press.

What follows is simply the end of the current business cycle as share-holders leave once they realize the company can't squeeze out anymore growth. A similar thing has already happened to the Computer game publishers. The cycle then starts again, hopefully 9th edition will be a good re-boot.

I understand your point but GW is in a very different industry than those companies. GW is selling a hobby and entertainment products ( black library novels for instance) and in that industry there is a lot of experimentation to find what works and doubling down on what does. Consumer preferences can be hard to predict with entertainment. I remember an interview with George Lucas awhile back where he describes the movie industry like gambling at a casino. In order to beat the odds a lot of companies lean hard on the brands that have "proven" themselves.

Yeah I don't buy the whole "That's capitalism, buddy! Get used to it!" argument.

Nobody plays sisters. Not a soul. And yet here we are with a huge new release.

Yes, I know marines and chaos marines are very popular and I'm fine with them getting more releases as such, but as others have said, the disparity is insane. And when GW does decide to randomly release a bunch of xenos stuff in spurts (GSC or orks that one October), it doesn't seem to be driven by profit. If it was, they would be more marine releases. Am I wrong?

And boy oh boy I remember being excited about starting harlequins with an upcoming codex. Looking through the index it was like "Man, these are really cool but the variety is suuuper slim. I can't wait for the codex for more options! It's gonna be great! They have to give us more toys to play with. They just have to! There's absolutely no way there won't be anything new so it's just a matter of fantasizing about which new things " Even my local Warhammer store guy said he was fully expecting GW to allow harlies to use some other eldar vehicles.

And then the codex comes... and it's nothing... You try to be positive. Heyyy… we got like.. masque forms.. and some relics and stratagems. That's pretty cool, right?...

And then kill team commanders comes out and ooh some armies are even getting new models like the new tech priest! I wonder if they'll give harlequins anything... Nope.

And kill team elites? Every faction has new units to use? Except Harlequins. Get fethed.

Ooh vigilus is giving out so many new formations and units! I wonder what Harlequins will get? Oh. Nothing. Neat.

Just end me, fam. Why did I pick this army lol

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

So you are agreeing that not only are Marines massively pushed in the models and army rules but also in all elements of the Lore - yeah can;t think why they are the most popular......

 Mr Morden wrote:
So you are agreeing that not only are Marines massively pushed in the models and army rules but also in all elements of the Lore - yeah can;t think why they are the most popular......

You need to learn to be happy with your role in the capitalist GW narrative. Everyone's been explaining why your non-marine faction will eternally be second class. You're poor, and that's bad, so you have to play the second tier game. Everyone above has been terribly patient in explaining this, why can't you be happy? /s

ThePorcupine wrote:


Nobody plays sisters. Not a soul. And yet here we are with a huge new release.

1) Patently false.
2) They had a survey which helped gauge interest. Should the re-release of Sisters flop and the players don't put the money where their mouths are we'll see fewer such releases in the future.

Yes, I know marines and chaos marines are very popular and I'm fine with them getting more releases as such, but as others have said, the disparity is insane. And when GW does decide to randomly release a bunch of xenos stuff in spurts (GSC or orks that one October), it doesn't seem to be driven by profit. If it was, they would be more marine releases. Am I wrong?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

And then kill team commanders comes out and ooh some armies are even getting new models like the new tech priest! I wonder if they'll give harlequins anything... Nope.

Tech priest was an existing unit...

And kill team elites? Every faction has new units to use? Except Harlequins. Get fethed.

Because they all got existing units and Harlies have few...

Ooh vigilus is giving out so many new formations and units! I wonder what Harlequins will get? Oh. Nothing. Neat.

They weren't on Vigilus just like the rest of the Eldar...

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
So you are agreeing that not only are Marines massively pushed in the models and army rules but also in all elements of the Lore - yeah can;t think why they are the most popular......

You need to learn to be happy with your role in the capitalist GW narrative. Everyone's been explaining why your non-marine faction will eternally be second class. You're poor, and that's bad, so you have to play the second tier game. Everyone above has been terribly patient in explaining this, why can't you be happy? /s

Actually I have plenty of Marine armies but it is sad that the rest of my armies are in such a bad state.

They weren't on Vigilus just like the rest of the Eldar...

The Eldar were on Viglius - you have read the lore right?

Why exactly did the Sistes get feth all when they even highlighted them in the lore - oh yeah becuase they had to cram the books with new rules for Marines.....

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
So you are agreeing that not only are Marines massively pushed in the models and army rules but also in all elements of the Lore - yeah can;t think why they are the most popular......

You need to learn to be happy with your role in the capitalist GW narrative. Everyone's been explaining why your non-marine faction will eternally be second class. You're poor, and that's bad, so you have to play the second tier game. Everyone above has been terribly patient in explaining this, why can't you be happy? /s

what does his finanical status have to do with it? GW is chasing the dollar.

*sighs* let's use another marketing comparison.

Cola Cola corp makes a number of soft drinks. including Coke, Diet Coke, and Barq's Root Beer. For the record, my prefered soft drink is root beer. A drink that is less popular then Coke. something I'll get back to in a second BTW.

there are a grand total of 2 types of Barq's Root Beer produced, regular and diet. (there are also some cream soda's produced under that brand)

Meanwhile there are TWELVE varities of Coke currently for sale, and over twelve types of diet coke.

Meanwhile, back in 2000 when I was in Europe, I cou;dn't get root beer of ANY TYPE when I went to a resturant, maybe it's changed in the past 19 years, but my favorite soft drink was practially unavalabe in the UK and France. (this BTW is because root beer never caught on in Europe due to no prohibition as I understand it)

So yes, the most popular flag ship product of a company is more popualr then their niche products.. that's a fact of life

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

Marines are unique? Are you cereal?

Super soldiers in big armour with big weapons? Literally in every bloody syfy setting ever? Halo Spartans, Starcraft marines all get confused with our Spess Muhreens.

Show me any other syfy setting with an Ork equivalent. I dare yas.

BrianDavion wrote:
So yes, the most popular flag ship product of a company is more popualr then their niche products.. that's a fact of life

Pretty sure that's what I said, and told him to be happy about it also. I think my messaging was on point and inline with company objectives. The effect that will have over the long term on non-balance sheet issues like game balance and playability are secondary concerns at best. Once we've all accepted that, how can the game possibly fail to be more fun?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

Marines are unique? Are you cereal?

Super soldiers in big armour with big weapons? Literally in every bloody syfy setting ever? Halo Spartans, Starcraft marines all get confused with our Spess Muhreens.

Show me any other syfy setting with an Ork equivalent. I dare yas.

No no - some people here just want 40k to be like 30k - Marines vs Marines - the rest is just minor background - don't spoil their illusions....they are likely quite fragile.

 Mr Morden wrote:
No no - some people here just want 40k to be like 30k - Marines vs Marines - the rest is just minor background - don't spoil their illusions....they are likely quite fragile.

This is accurate. I mean, as Chaos, I should probably be happy, unlike all the other factions, we at least got a reach around before all this gak came down.

BrianDavion wrote:
what does his finanical status have to do with it? GW is chasing the dollar.

*sighs* let's use another marketing comparison.

Cola Cola corp makes a number of soft drinks. including Coke, Diet Coke, and Barq's Root Beer. For the record, my prefered soft drink is root beer. A drink that is less popular then Coke. something I'll get back to in a second BTW.

there are a grand total of 2 types of Barq's Root Beer produced, regular and diet. (there are also some cream soda's produced under that brand)

Meanwhile there are TWELVE varities of Coke currently for sale, and over twelve types of diet coke.

Meanwhile, back in 2000 when I was in Europe, I cou;dn't get root beer of ANY TYPE when I went to a resturant, maybe it's changed in the past 19 years, but my favorite soft drink was practially unavalabe in the UK and France. (this BTW is because root beer never caught on in Europe due to no prohibition as I understand it)

So yes, the most popular flag ship product of a company is more popualr then their niche products.. that's a fact of life

Ugh, I've seen this rubbish argument before, it's dumb and does not translate in anyway to the sales of toy soldiers. For a start you realise that Barq's root beer doesn't exist outside of the US (well certainly not in the UK anyway).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

Marines are unique? Are you cereal?

Super soldiers in big armour with big weapons? Literally in every bloody syfy setting ever? Halo Spartans, Starcraft marines all get confused with our Spess Muhreens.

Show me any other syfy setting with an Ork equivalent. I dare yas.

HALO Spartans and starcraft marines came after the fact, and where inspired by 40k space marines. as for orks in 40k, they;'re just orks with a dash of mad max.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Current tournament attendance is a terrible metric for overall play of an army. A person with an army that is bad in the meta probably isn't going to tournaments, or at the very least is using one of their other, stronger armies for tournaments.

Also depends on if you are looking at ITC or something else, ITC meta is so completely different you cant consider it the same game. I know a large amount that dont play tournaments b.c they all are ITC around here and most of the ITC players wont play GW missions. The few players that do play GW missions and don't modify their lists never wins any games b.c killing means nothing most the time (its funny b.c the marine players will castle up and shoot, then i'll fly 2 venoms with 5 kabals in each to 2 different objectives, kill nothing can score 3points while they got only first blood).

The 40k players are so splint into meta pockets its not even funny. Dakka for some reasont hinks ITC is all the is played when in reality it is very far from the truth.

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

Marines are unique? Are you cereal?

Super soldiers in big armour with big weapons? Literally in every bloody syfy setting ever? Halo Spartans, Starcraft marines all get confused with our Spess Muhreens.

Show me any other syfy setting with an Ork equivalent. I dare yas.

HALO Spartans and starcraft marines came after the fact, and where inspired by 40k space marines. as for orks in 40k, they;'re just orks with a dash of mad max.

It doesn't matter if they came after the fact. People, that is to say the general public, can't tell the difference between Spartans, SC Marines and 40k Marines. They are generic as generic can be.

"Just Orks with a dash of mad max"? Lol you're not gonna get a bite that easy and you didn't answer the question. Give me a syfy setting with an equivalent race to Orks. I've given you 2 SM equivalents, there are many others.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Tech priest was an existing unit...

Not the tech priest manipulus. That was made just for that kill team release.

And harlequins got nothing in kill team because they have few units?... See previous point. DESIGN A NEW UNIT. IT'S HONEST TO GOD NOT HARD. They do it for other armies every other day!

And I would seriously like to see the data on what chunk of the player base plays sisters. I'm willing to bet it's miniscule.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Ugh, I've seen this rubbish argument before, it's dumb and does not translate in anyway to the sales of toy soldiers. For a start you realise that Barq's root beer doesn't exist outside of the US (well certainly not in the UK anyway).

You have not made a convincing argument.

I love Barqs. I don't care about the UK. Why isn't Coca Cola making Cherry Barqs in the US? I like Cherry. I bet it would sell well. They make Cherry Coke. Clearly they have the means.

ThePorcupine wrote:
And I would seriously like to see the data on what chunk of the player base plays sisters. I'm willing to bet it's miniscule.

I agree with all of your post but this is particularly pertinent. I agree with your bet and I'll go one further - I'd put money that the number of Sisters players, now that they're getting a brand new line of models ala a Marine release, is going to skyrocket.

It's almost as if supporting a line with new, modern, plastic models encourages purchases of said line or something?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Ugh, I've seen this rubbish argument before, it's dumb and does not translate in anyway to the sales of toy soldiers. For a start you realise that Barq's root beer doesn't exist outside of the US (well certainly not in the UK anyway).

You have not made a convincing argument.

I love Barqs. I don't care about the UK. Why isn't Coca Cola making Cherry Barqs in the US? I like Cherry. I bet it would sell well. They make Cherry Coke. Clearly they have the means.

The original argument isn't convincing. It does not translate. We are discussing two entirely different markets, two hugely different consumer types and two vastly different products.

What you're doing here is confusing a brand and a product. Coke is a much stronger brand than Barqs and is likely the primary reason you don't see cherry Barqs. In addition there is likely a competitor's product that has a much stronger presence within the "Cherry Softdrinks" market space. Space Marines models are not a brand, they are a product. Games Workshop and 40k are the brand.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Tech priest was an existing unit...

Not the tech priest manipulus. That was made just for that kill team release.

And harlequins got nothing in kill team because they have few units?... See previous point. DESIGN A NEW UNIT. IT'S HONEST TO GOD NOT HARD. They do it for other armies every other day!

And I would seriously like to see the data on what chunk of the player base plays sisters. I'm willing to bet it's miniscule.

yeah thats what GW said for 20 years - and then they actually asked if anyone wanted them - and now they are making them.

Harlequins had more units in older dexes - like the one that was before the Marine ones....

1° Space marines are not the inspiration of Spartans or STarcraft marines. All space supersoldiers, just like all space bugs come from Starship Troopers. The book.

2° By GW own admision, Space Marines were made following the idea of Chaos Warriors from fantasy : Heavy supersoldiers. Because back in the day Chaos Warriors were the most popular thing of Fantasy. So SM allready come as a version of the most popular concept of fantasy. And you can see how in RT and 2° even if Marines featured on the cover, the support was more equally distributed. You could see how in Fantasy, Chaos Warriors declined in popularity in favour of High Elves and other factions. But that didnt happened in 40k. Thats why Fantasy saw a much varied universe, and 40k is so marine centric. The irony is that even fantasy became infected with the maribe disease in the form of stormcast., coming full circle.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Chicken/egg. Does GW release more Space Marines because more people play Space Marines, or do more people play Space Marines because they get more support than other armies?

keep in mind that, and I'm not talking the minis and army rules right now, space marines and chaos marines are proably the most developed factions. the amount of fluff and lore out there for them dwarves anyone else.If you want a novel about say... AdMech you have a pretty thin selection, Imperial Guard likewise (by comparison, I know there are a lot of guard books) Marines, well there's 60 or so books currently in Horus heresy alone.

So people whose intreast in 40k is the setting are more likely drawn to space marines. especially as space Marines are one of the more unique aspects of 40k.

Marines are unique? Are you cereal?

Super soldiers in big armour with big weapons? Literally in every bloody syfy setting ever? Halo Spartans, Starcraft marines all get confused with our Spess Muhreens.

Show me any other syfy setting with an Ork equivalent. I dare yas.

HALO Spartans and starcraft marines came after the fact, and where inspired by 40k space marines. as for orks in 40k, they;'re just orks with a dash of mad max.

It doesn't matter if they came after the fact. People, that is to say the general public, can't tell the difference between Spartans, SC Marines and 40k Marines. They are generic as generic can be.

"Just Orks with a dash of mad max"? Lol you're not gonna get a bite that easy and you didn't answer the question. Give me a syfy setting with an equivalent race to Orks. I've given you 2 SM equivalents, there are many others.

yet again, it's hardly GW's fault if their inconic posterboy race is copied by everyone else, that implies it has a large public appeal and actually reinforces the idea. 40k is 30 years old, if there are no other sci-fi settings out there with Orks in it (BTW off the top of my head, starfinder and spelljammer. "ohh but they're just fantasy thrown in space" you claim? well.... yeah the name ork is so widely associated with fantasy you're not going to see it outside fantasy) thats because it lacks the widespread appeal.

 Galas wrote:
1° Space marines are not the inspiration of Spartans or STarcraft marines. All space supersoldiers, just like all space bugs come from Starship Troopers. The book.

2° By GW own admision, Space Marines were made following the idea of Chaos Warriors from fantasy : Heavy supersoldiers. Because back in the day Chaos Warriors were the most popular thing of Fantasy. So SM allready come as a version of the most popular concept of fantasy. And you can see how in RT and 2° even if Marines featured on the cover, the support was more equally distributed. You could see how in Fantasy, Chaos Warriors declined in popularity in favour of High Elves and other factions. But that didnt happened in 40k. Thats why Fantasy saw a much varied universe, and 40k is so marine centric. The irony is that even fantasy became infected with the maribe disease in the form of stormcast., coming full circle.

Chaos Warriors are my jam. All these War Cry models that bear very little armor? Meh. The new Chaos Warriors fully decked out in armor? Daaaaamn.

Like nothing has captured how brutally awesome Chaos Warriors are than this:




It also entices me back into AoS.

BrianDavion wrote:
yet again, it's hardly GW's fault if their inconic posterboy race is copied by everyone else, that implies it has a large public appeal and actually reinforces the idea. 40k is 30 years old, if there are no other sci-fi settings out there with Orks in it (BTW off the top of my head, starfinder and spelljammer. "ohh but they're just fantasy thrown in space" you claim? well.... yeah the name ork is so widely associated with fantasy you're not going to see it outside fantasy) thats because it lacks the widespread appeal.

Ooooof this is a dumb argument for so many reasons.

"Space Marines" of different sorts feature in so many syfy settings because they are literally the most generic hero character in any given syfy setting. They are as boring as boring can be. As has been said above, GW didn't invent them either, but that's by the by.

Orks don't feature in as many settings because they are actually pretty damn unique of the 40k factions.

And as to why you're argument is stupid? There are plenty of "Eldar"-ish equivalents in syfy settings yet according to GW releases they're nowhere near as popular as marines. "Tyranid" bug equivalents are probably the most regular antagonist of all syfy settings, but if GW are to be believed they aren't popular at all..... see why your basic argument falls in on itself so quickly? You see that there might be other forces at play here as to the popularity of a faction in 40k?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
1° Space marines are not the inspiration of Spartans or STarcraft marines. All space supersoldiers, just like all space bugs come from Starship Troopers. The book.

2° By GW own admision, Space Marines were made following the idea of Chaos Warriors from fantasy : Heavy supersoldiers. Because back in the day Chaos Warriors were the most popular thing of Fantasy. So SM allready come as a version of the most popular concept of fantasy. And you can see how in RT and 2° even if Marines featured on the cover, the support was more equally distributed. You could see how in Fantasy, Chaos Warriors declined in popularity in favour of High Elves and other factions. But that didnt happened in 40k. Thats why Fantasy saw a much varied universe, and 40k is so marine centric. The irony is that even fantasy became infected with the maribe disease in the form of stormcast., coming full circle.

Chaos Warriors are my jam. All these War Cry models that bear very little armor? Meh. The new Chaos Warriors fully decked out in armor? Daaaaamn.

Like nothing has captured how brutally awesome Chaos Warriors are than this:




It also entices me back into AoS.

I can only agree. That cinematic totally sold me the grim advancing, silent killing machines of 6th chaos warriors. No screaming, no babbling. Pure and imposing baddassery.
Is funny how everyone in that cinematic is a baddass, even the ones that lose and die. If only gw authors could write like that.

You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

 Galas wrote:
1° Space marines are not the inspiration of Spartans or STarcraft marines. All space supersoldiers, just like all space bugs come from Starship Troopers. The book.

no starship troopers conceptualized POWER armor, space marines are individuals taken as children and subjected to horrific genetic enhancements with a lowish survival rate. however those whom survive are turned into super soldiers, said super soldiers are then given advanced power armor and weapons. which yeah... is almost exactly like HALO Spartans. to the point where I doubt very much it's a coincidance.

As for star craft, it's pretty widely known star craft was umm.. borrowing from 40k. which is a polite way to say Blizzard's not terriably original with it's lore and mostly just cribs other peoples ideas.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The idea has never been that Space Marines sell JUST because they get all the rules support.

I'll just quote myself (but I'll make it easier for you);

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because;
1.Marines get all the support and
2.all the resource and
3.all the new kits and
4.feature in all the starter sets and
5.have the best rules now and
6.have the most cross-compatible models and
7.have always been pushed by GW
8.etc
9.etc
10.etc

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

So, in other words, the statement that Marines sell because they get great rules support all the time isn't actually true?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The idea has never been that Space Marines sell JUST because they get all the rules support.

I'll just quote myself (but I'll make it easier for you);

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because;
1.Marines get all the support and
2.all the resource and
3.all the new kits and
4.feature in all the starter sets and
5.have the best rules now and
6.have the most cross-compatible models and
7.have always been pushed by GW
8.etc
9.etc
10.etc

I think you left ouf:

X: Marines are really, really popular regardless of whether 1-10 hold true or not.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

So, in other words, the statement that Marines sell because they get great rules support all the time isn't actually true?

Well they had the most consistent rule support (not best) and the most consistent release schedule to the point of ridicoulusness in 8th.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
1° Space marines are not the inspiration of Spartans or STarcraft marines. All space supersoldiers, just like all space bugs come from Starship Troopers. The book.

no starship troopers conceptualized POWER armor, space marines are individuals taken as children and subjected to horrific genetic enhancements with a lowish survival rate. however those whom survive are turned into super soldiers, said super soldiers are then given advanced power armor and weapons. which yeah... is almost exactly like HALO Spartans. to the point where I doubt very much it's a coincidance.

As for star craft, it's pretty widely known star craft was umm.. borrowing from 40k. which is a polite way to say Blizzard's not terriably original with it's lore and mostly just cribs other peoples ideas.

Sooooo Starship Troopers conceptualised Space Super Soldiers and Spess Muhreens are Space Super Soldiers? Got it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

So, in other words, the statement that Marines sell because they get great rules support all the time isn't actually true?

Well they had the most consistent rule support (not best) and the most consistent release schedule to the point of ridicoulusness in 8th.

Which doesn't explain why they sold like hot-cakes before that happened, unless people can suddenly see into the future.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The idea has never been that Space Marines sell JUST because they get all the rules support.

I'll just quote myself (but I'll make it easier for you);

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think the point JNA was trying to make, obviously, is that Marines sell because;
1.Marines get all the support and
2.all the resource and
3.all the new kits and
4.feature in all the starter sets and
5.have the best rules now and
6.have the most cross-compatible models and
7.have always been pushed by GW
8.etc
9.etc
10.etc

I think you left ouf:

X: Marines are really, really popular because 1-10 hold true.

Fixed that for you

No you didn't,.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

So, in other words, the statement that Marines sell because they get great rules support all the time isn't actually true?

Well they had the most consistent rule support (not best) and the most consistent release schedule to the point of ridicoulusness in 8th.

Which doesn't explain why they sold like hot-cakes before that happened, unless people can suddenly see into the future.

Read all the responses - marines get EVERYTHING Advertsing, started boxes, constant articels on Warhammer Community, models, lore, rules, you name - its lavished on them.

Then wierdly they sell the most...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No you didn't,.

This "discussion" is over then.

You're literally responding with "No, you're wrong and I'm going to tell the mods because you've broken the rules."

You're honestly claiming, in good faith, that the combination of my points 1-7 have absolutely no impact on the popularity of marines? How?

err they don't get constant articles. they get articles when they get a release. go over to warhammer community.com right now and you'll not see a single referance to marines... well beyond a referance to a horus heresy audio bundle.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No you didn't,.

This "discussion" is over then.

You're literally responding with "No, you're wrong and I'm going to tell the mods because you've broken the rules."

You're honestly claiming, in good faith, that the combination of my points 1-7 have absolutely no impact on the popularity of marines? How?

I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility. As long as that is the case the "discussion" is indeed over.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No you didn't,.

This "discussion" is over then.

You're literally responding with "No, you're wrong and I'm going to tell the mods because you've broken the rules."

You're honestly claiming, in good faith, that the combination of my points 1-7 have absolutely no impact on the popularity of marines? How?

I don't see any mention of the mods dude. And if the mods are sending you warnings for your behavior...well, thats on you not on him

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility. As long as that is the case the "discussion" is indeed over.

And because they sell well, you get a game with crap balance. Why can't everyone just be happy with that?

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No you didn't,.

This "discussion" is over then.

You're literally responding with "No, you're wrong and I'm going to tell the mods because you've broken the rules."

You're honestly claiming, in good faith, that the combination of my points 1-7 have absolutely no impact on the popularity of marines? How?

I don't see any mention of the mods dude. And if the mods are sending you warnings for your behavior...well, thats on you not on him

Nah, that was my bad before I edited my post. Mods tend to frown on editing other people's quotes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility. As long as that is the case the "discussion" is indeed over.

And because they sell well, you get a game with crap balance. Why can't everyone just be happy with that?

Because you haven't proved that this is the case? It could very well be, but correlation does not imply causation.

This entire discussion is, from my point of view, a bunch of people treating a scenario that could well be true as objectively true just because it is possible that it is. It may well be that Marines getting so much focus is the reason for why they are so popular. A lot of people just take this for granted and refuse to even contemplate the idea that this may not be the case.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

BrianDavion wrote:
[I don't see any mention of the mods dude. And if the mods are sending you warnings for your behavior...well, thats on you not on him

I've had no mod warnings, calm yourself britches. Looks like he edited his post, apparently FTFY are rule violations?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Because you haven't proved that this is the case? It could very well be, but correlation does not imply causation.

Why bother against this tide of SM fanboys? SM could take the top 50 spots at the next 50 tournaments you'd still be here defending them to your dying breath. Why participate in a debate with an utterly disingenuous opponent?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

Cool, then we're on the same page. I may be getting you mixed up with other people, but there's a consistent trend of people ignoring the fact that we have no way of knowing what the baseline popularity of Marines would be without the other listed factors.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're conflating "generic" with "boring". Things are generic because they work.

Regarding the idea that Space Marines sell because they get all the rules support, why did Primaris Marines sell like hotcakes even at the start of the edition when they were bad-to-almost-kinda-playable?

The models that were massively pushed like all Marines - constantly and consistantly with little or no let up?

Continues development during the years, new models, new books.
Easily accessible with Dark Imperium set, most of the sets have primaris in it.
Build easy models and free models in WD, even local shops need to keep a large amount of SM models.
Other faction have 1-2 boxes, SM have 5-6.

If 1 more year GW did not give SM good rules, their popularity was going to tank.
For instance couple of people sold their SM armies because they were unhappy with the performance.
Also don`t forget they are recieving models non-stop, so players expected them to have decent rules sooner or latter.
The continuous support of the lane is big magnet. But vanila marines are tanking, blood angels, wolfs and dark angels armies were sold.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

Cool, then we're on the same page. I may be getting you mixed up with other people, but there's a consistent trend of people ignoring the fact that we have no way of knowing what the baseline popularity of Marines would be without the other listed factors.

In some ways it's irrelevant though right?

GW can steer the popularity of a faction. They are able to influence their own sales. Look at Sisters. Do this for Xenos factions. Make others happy and make them want to part with their hard-earned.

We know Marines are the most popular faction as of now in 40k and they are likely the most profitable. The issue is GW are killing their own community with their obsessive focus on marines and this isn't healthy. Nor are the staunch defenders piling in when anyone dares express their displeasure at this fact.

The problem is undoubtedly cyclic. There have been claims that in the olden days, GW made more from the Tactical Marine Box than they did from whole Xenos factions.

Which isn't really surprising, because almost everyone starts out the hobby with a tactical marine box. I don't know if they push intercessors as much now - it seems a bit too fiddly - but I wouldn't be surprised. Certainly with the easy build models.

But yeah, "woops, we last released something for this faction five years ago, eh, no one's buying them anyway, lets wait another 5" is a vicious cycle.

I mean Sisters is going to be a good case. For years the cry went up "no one wants Sisters, its just a meme". Well, unsurprisingly people didn't want metal models dating from 1998 (or whenever). Its a commitment too far.

But if they fly off the shelves now - its unclear to me why they wouldn't have done so years ago. GW just needed to actually release a product.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

Cool, then we're on the same page. I may be getting you mixed up with other people, but there's a consistent trend of people ignoring the fact that we have no way of knowing what the baseline popularity of Marines would be without the other listed factors.

In some ways it's irrelevant though right?

GW can steer the popularity of a faction. They are able to influence their own sales. Look at Sisters. Do this for Xenos factions. Make others happy and make them want to part with their hard-earned.

We know Marines are the most popular faction as of now in 40k and they are likely the most profitable. The issue is GW are killing their own community with their obsessive focus on marines and this isn't healthy. Nor are the staunch defenders piling in when anyone dares express their displeasure at this fact.

Keep in mind that, while Sisters models were asked for, that doesn't mean they will sell fantastically.

When push comes to shove, how many of the people clamoring for plastic Sisters will legit drop a butt load of money on them?

I think the starter box will sell like hot cakes. Tidy box, nice price point, lots will be bought for novelty value, even by people who have never seen a sister of battle in the metal before. After that, I can see them being as popular as GSC or custodes.

I bet they push them competitive wise to make them sell well.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility. As long as that is the case the "discussion" is indeed over.

And because they sell well, you get a game with crap balance. Why can't everyone just be happy with that?

except the idea that Marines are always OP etc is utterly FALSE. until their new codex Marines where not generally considered top tier. It's fine to complain about codex creep, because it absolutely is annoying, but let's not conflate seperate issues.because people are doing that. I've seen people imply that Marines are OP because "ohh they get frequent releases" this is.. mostly false. GW is... hit and miss with their unit rules. for every unit introduced as brokeningly OP, there's one or two that are so mediocre they're simply not useful. (we tend to just not register them because they're swiftly forgotten) balance and releases is not at all connected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

Cool, then we're on the same page. I may be getting you mixed up with other people, but there's a consistent trend of people ignoring the fact that we have no way of knowing what the baseline popularity of Marines would be without the other listed factors.

In some ways it's irrelevant though right?

GW can steer the popularity of a faction. They are able to influence their own sales. Look at Sisters. Do this for Xenos factions. Make others happy and make them want to part with their hard-earned.

We know Marines are the most popular faction as of now in 40k and they are likely the most profitable. The issue is GW are killing their own community with their obsessive focus on marines and this isn't healthy. Nor are the staunch defenders piling in when anyone dares express their displeasure at this fact.

Keep in mind that, while Sisters models were asked for, that doesn't mean they will sell fantastically.

When push comes to shove, how many of the people clamoring for plastic Sisters will legit drop a butt load of money on them?

I plan on getting some but I might skip the box dependant on it's costs and my income level.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that there is a possibility that even if we removed your points Marines would still sell well, and you're consistently refusing to accept that this is a possibility.

When did I do this? I don't disagree with this at all.

Cool, then we're on the same page. I may be getting you mixed up with other people, but there's a consistent trend of people ignoring the fact that we have no way of knowing what the baseline popularity of Marines would be without the other listed factors.

In some ways it's irrelevant though right?

GW can steer the popularity of a faction. They are able to influence their own sales. Look at Sisters. Do this for Xenos factions. Make others happy and make them want to part with their hard-earned.

We know Marines are the most popular faction as of now in 40k and they are likely the most profitable. The issue is GW are killing their own community with their obsessive focus on marines and this isn't healthy. Nor are the staunch defenders piling in when anyone dares express their displeasure at this fact.

Keep in mind that, while Sisters models were asked for, that doesn't mean they will sell fantastically.

When push comes to shove, how many of the people clamoring for plastic Sisters will legit drop a butt load of money on them?

I probably won't get the box, but I'll probably get at least a battalion's worth to tack onto a soup army.

I frequent Sisters specific threads in other forums that have them. Many folks are unhappy about the box- it's looking 50/50 on who's gonna buy and who's gonna pass.

Personally, I think it's a lot of knee jerk rage posting for many of them; we've been waiting. So. Long.

My worry is that GW will draw conclusions about player preference by the way we respond to their marketing problems. Take our OP Phoenix Rising; If they had released the box of Banshees, the box of Incubi, Jain Zar, and Drazhar all as separates, and folded the lean campaign book in the box into the lean PA book, this release would have been a huge success. Instead, it's been 14 pages of rage posting.

I just hope they don't assume no one likes Eldar because no ones buying Phoenix Rising.

And they are repeating the pattern with Sisters. You won't be able to buy the codex unless you buy the box, and you can't buy the box without paying for the dex, making it suck if you were planning to buy 2 boxes.

The good news is this:

The sisters line has been in development for so long that even if this box tanks, they don't really have the capacity to modify the schedule of the full release.

And the full release will be very hard for them to keep in stock; it's a license to print money. I know people who are literally planning to drop thousand on pre-release day.

That should be all the sales data GW needs to realize that it's the big box only concept that is preventing these models from selling and not the fact that the players don't like the models or the armies.

If I was made of money, I'd have bought 2 copies of Phoenix Rising just because it would make GW see there is a market. I kick myself in the ass almost daily for not buying 3-5 copies of Gangs of Commorragh. If that had been as successful as the release of Verydian or Celestine [which sold out in the first week if I remember correctly], DE may have ended up with a Baron Sathonyx model. Heck, that box was even really good value model wise.

The problem with both Gangs and Blood is that they were good value... if you wanted all of the models in the box. Hellions are so actively bad that their inclusion in both boxes was a significant drawback - why pay money for something you're almost never going to use, even if it's at a discount?

They're one of the units that seemed an obvious candidate for changes in Phoenix Rising, but c'est la vie. Maybe Chapter Approved.

I don't have any experience playing DE yet, but I want Hellions because I want to grow my army from a small Wych Cult. I've created a couple special scenarios relating to the wych cult's acquisition of hellions, the acsension of one Hellion to the role of Beast Master and an adventure style mission where the Beastmaster and his escort seek and dominate an Ambull and bring it back to the arena. HUGE rep for the cult. Helps them ally with Kabals and Covens for realspace raids- competition is fierce for the right to raid.

This is why balance and competitveness are NEVER issues for me. Playing BSF/ KT/ 40k is like using minis in a role playing game.

On a side note, if you play Blackstone, this month's WD gives you rules for using a Solitaire in BSF. I think it's just a retinue character, but it's inclusion at least.

BrianDavion wrote:
except the idea that Marines are always OP etc is utterly FALSE. until their new codex Marines where not generally considered top tier. It's fine to complain about codex creep, because it absolutely is annoying, but let's not conflate seperate issues.because people are doing that. I've seen people imply that Marines are OP because "ohh they get frequent releases" this is.. mostly false. GW is... hit and miss with their unit rules. for every unit introduced as brokeningly OP, there's one or two that are so mediocre they're simply not useful. (we tend to just not register them because they're swiftly forgotten) balance and releases is not at all connected.

Disconnecting GWs wild over-correction in the SM codex from their status as the favored faction in the game is disingenuous. We all know they are hopelessly tied together, pretending they're not is insulting. But please, continue equivocating about it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
except the idea that Marines are always OP etc is utterly FALSE. until their new codex Marines where not generally considered top tier. It's fine to complain about codex creep, because it absolutely is annoying, but let's not conflate seperate issues.because people are doing that. I've seen people imply that Marines are OP because "ohh they get frequent releases" this is.. mostly false. GW is... hit and miss with their unit rules. for every unit introduced as brokeningly OP, there's one or two that are so mediocre they're simply not useful. (we tend to just not register them because they're swiftly forgotten) balance and releases is not at all connected.

Disconnecting GWs wild over-correction in the SM codex from their status as the favored faction in the game is disingenuous. We all know they are hopelessly tied together, pretending they're not is insulting. But please, continue equivocating about it.

Why did it take over two years?
What were Ynnari and Castellans doing at top tables? Are they favorites, too? And the soup that powered them? I seem to recall IS were 'incredibly strong' being 4 points.

The fact is, GW knows damn well that Space Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW knows damn well that Space Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

True. Not sure why. Marines as heros? GW particularly promotes those blue tin cans. Never understood why SM must be blue colored on all those pics.

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

PenitentJake wrote:

My worry is that GW will draw conclusions about player preference by the way we respond to their marketing problems. Take our OP Phoenix Rising; If they had released the box of Banshees, the box of Incubi, Jain Zar, and Drazhar all as separates, and folded the lean campaign book in the box into the lean PA book, this release would have been a huge success. Instead, it's been 14 pages of rage posting.

I just hope they don't assume no one likes Eldar because no ones buying Phoenix Rising.

It's lose/lose.

Either no one buys it, and GW concludes that no one is interested in the Eldar factions, or else it sells well and GW concludes that Eldar players will buy literally anything, no matter how lazy, anaemic and generally awful it is.

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW knows damn well that Space Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

okey, but isn't it because people stay with marines longer, knowing that even if the army is bad, GW will sooner then later update it to be good again, because of how many people play them. For a marine players bad rules can be just a few months or a year. While lets say an orc player can get editions worth of bad books.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

He said that Marine sales are high even without the added factor of having strong rules, NOT that strong rules have no effect on sales at all. Did you read what he wrote and understood it before spilling out a rubbish reply?

Marine sales are high for several reasons and you give some very good examples yourself. Having strong rules helps, but being mediocre does not decrease those sales too much. Without data, this is something I would believe without a doubt. "Everybody" seem to have Marine models of some sort.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

He said that Marine sales are high even without the added factor of having strong rules, NOT that strong rules have no effect on sales at all. Did you read what he wrote and understood it before spilling out a rubbish reply?

Marine sales are high for several reasons and you give some very good examples yourself. Having strong rules helps, but being mediocre does not decrease those sales too much. Without data, this is something I would believe without a doubt. "Everybody" seem to have Marine models of some sort.

I think Marines also have a large number of fans whose man passion is the lore and stories more then anything. I've not data for this but it'd explain why if you go on the background and lore fourm 90% of the discussions are marine related.

BrianDavion wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

He said that Marine sales are high even without the added factor of having strong rules, NOT that strong rules have no effect on sales at all. Did you read what he wrote and understood it before spilling out a rubbish reply?

Marine sales are high for several reasons and you give some very good examples yourself. Having strong rules helps, but being mediocre does not decrease those sales too much. Without data, this is something I would believe without a doubt. "Everybody" seem to have Marine models of some sort.

I think Marines also have a large number of fans whose man passion is the lore and stories more then anything. I've not data for this but it'd explain why if you go on the background and lore fourm 90% of the discussions are marine related.

It's really easy to be a lore fan when the lore is written in such minutiae - I'd love to discuss the current recruitment rate of the shrine of the poisoned sting, their heroes and their force disposition, but I barely get that for an entire craftworld let alone the shrines of warriors (of similar size to a chapter) found within.


I've known the ultramarine force organisation since 1995 when I got their first codex. It's only been added to since then. The current Eldar codex is mostly a hackjob of the 2nd Ed book, with the bolt on new units they've made since then.

My space Wolves (representing an army of only a few thousand) are more canonically described than my Eldar (representing however many million/billion Eldar exist an entire faction), and both armies are 23 years old... Actually now I think about it, my salamanders only became an army when they released codex Armageddon in 3rd Ed and they've gone from existing as a name and paint scheme to having more information (codexes, FW and novels) about them than pretty much all xenos armies...

The same problem with miniatures and rules applies to lore as well.

It's so thin anything interesting inevitably ends up as speculation or fanfic..

a_typical_hero wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

He said that Marine sales are high even without the added factor of having strong rules, NOT that strong rules have no effect on sales at all. Did you read what he wrote and understood it before spilling out a rubbish reply?

Marine sales are high for several reasons and you give some very good examples yourself. Having strong rules helps, but being mediocre does not decrease those sales too much. Without data, this is something I would believe without a doubt. "Everybody" seem to have Marine models of some sort.

Source for those marine sales figures that are 'high' while they had poor rules please? Stats of marine sales maintaining while their rules were poor also please? You don't have any? You're making stats up to suit a bizarre narrative?!

I don't have a single marine model. Your beliefs are not fact.

 Burnage wrote:
The problem with both Gangs and Blood is that they were good value... if you wanted all of the models in the box. Hellions are so actively bad that their inclusion in both boxes was a significant drawback - why pay money for something you're almost never going to use, even if it's at a discount?

They're one of the units that seemed an obvious candidate for changes in Phoenix Rising, but c'est la vie. Maybe Chapter Approved.

but least in Gangs they were bits sprues for free as the box was £35(?) and Reavers where £20(?), using them to further pad out the new hotness tax in Blood was a tad low, but I guess they couldn't put Wyches in as they'd show up the Banshees for the averageness plus Exarch they still are

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Source for those marine sales figures that are 'high' while they had poor rules please? Stats of marine sales maintaining while their rules were poor also please? You don't have any? You're making stats up to suit a bizarre narrative?!

I don't have a single marine model. Your beliefs are not fact.

Sales figures for single factions don't exist to my knowledge, but according to the survey on Dakka some time back more than every third member does have Marines sitting at home.
"The Outer Circle" gathered some data back in 2017 about faction representation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wZ99-EVHiM and Marines take the top spot.
While not relevant for 40k sales, Marines are in such high demand that Forgeworld has done "nothing else" for the last 10 years. Please note the words in "" to indicate that I don't really mean "nothing else", just like "everybody" in my previous post.

You said yourself that Marines sell in your previous post, so what are you attacking me now? Do you want to provide your stats for how well/bad Reivers sell and the scientific, peer reviewed essay on why this is connected to their rules? Had a bad day, mate?

If believing that Marines are the best selling faction is a "bizarre narrative", I'm eager to hear from you which faction you think is the best selling and for what reasons.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Your beliefs are not fact.

Yes,...that's why I said "I believe it" instead of "This is a fact"

Today, I ordered two Ynnari books from Gav Thorpe.
I hope this gives me some motivation to play Ynnari for a while,
or at least - and more probable - play the Ynnari HQs in one of my armies (Harlies, Kabal or Biel-Tan).

When you first make a strawman out of someone's post so you can make an indignant reply and then proceed to interpret "everybody" in quotation marks as meaning "literally everybody" instead of taking one second to recognize that there's a reason those quotation marks were there I'd say you should take a break, sit back and think about just what you're doing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
When you first make a strawman out of someone's post so you can make an indignant reply and then proceed to interpret "everybody" in quotation marks as meaning "literally everybody" instead of taking one second to recognize that there's a reason those quotation marks were there I'd say you should take a break, sit back and think about just what you're doing.

The strawman here is hero, who seemed to confuse me questioning his literal statement of:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Having strong rules helps, but being mediocre does not decrease those sales too much.

As me saying this:

a_typical_hero wrote:

If believing that Marines are the best selling faction is a "bizarre narrative", I'm eager to hear from you which faction you think is the best selling and for what reasons.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice though Walrus? Didn't you literally fantasise something I hadn't said only a page back, as well as make up forum rules? When you're imagining that posters have said something they haven't on a forum where you can literally see what those people have written, perhaps its time to take a break, sit back and think about just what you're doing.

Your strawman is right here:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

I wasn't even the first one to point it out. The statement was never that rules do not affect Marine sales. Something something "imagining that posters say things" something something "where you can literally see" something something indeed. The fact that someone else has also used a strawman does not change the fact that you did too.

I'd add in your defense that I don't think you did so maliciously, but rather just as a misreading of the post you were responding to, but you remain responsible for what you post.

Further, considering you went on to do exactly what I got you mixed up with others of doing, in this post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

I don't think I do need to take a break, because there was clearly cause for me to get you mixed up with other people. You're right in your assertion that people don't have sales figures for Marines, but you then go on to commit exactly the same fallacy as you point out, only in the opposite direction. You're (correctly) calling someone out for being wrong and then committing exactly the same error at the same time. Considering how we literally just had the conversation where I pointed out that people tended to do this exact thing, that's a bit discouraging.

Finally, I'm not making up forum rules. Changing people's quotes, including "FTFY" type posts, has had mods stepping in since I joined the forum in 2010. That I chose to edit it out of my previous post doesn't mean the practice doesn't exist. You don't have to take my word for it, just ask the mods directly. With this I'm done for now, I'll read any finishing reply you feel like making but I don't think me clogging the thread up further will add to the discussion at hand.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

How many shrikes are they selling? What about IFF, now? How many IH lists are using him?

Centurions are a new kit, right?

I think good and bad rules drive sales but just in the most extreme examples.
For example, Stealth suits are much better than kroot hounds but nobody is buying either for their rules. In the other hand the FW Yvranna suit was a top seller because how busted they were.

The same happens to marines. They sell consistentely well evem with mediocre rules, but when some units have busted rules, tournament players will buy them.
But we also have to remember that ultra competitive players are a minority of a section of the player base "tournament players"
When a unit has rules so bad nobody uses it, as long as the kit is decent it will see sales, because rules come and go.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your strawman is right here:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

I wasn't even the first one to point it out. The statement was never that rules do not affect Marine sales.

I'd add in your defense that I don't think you did so maliciously, but rather just as a misreading of the post you were responding to, but you remain responsible for what you post.

The statement was that rules have no affect on Marine sales was it not? Reading exactly what Brian has written it implies that to me anyway. 'GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well' surely implies that they sell well regardless of their rules? What else could it imply, exactly?

This is evidently false. Store owners have stated as much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The fact is, GW know damn well Marines don't need to be strong to sell well. sell armies with a smaller dedicated fanbase may need that, but Marines seem to sell quite well for GW even when their rules aren't partiuclarly strong.

What a load of rubbish. If you think rules don’t affect Marine sales I suggest you ask your local store how many Iron Father Ferrios models they have in stock compared to Reivers.

Yes Marines sell. Maybe it’s because they feature in all of the box sets, get tons of new models, are pushed by GW at every opportunity, weren’t actually bad before the recent buff, always get the new stuff first (stratagems, codex for any edition) etc? You frequently forget all of these contributing factors when discussing Marine sales (for which you have 0 actual data, of course).

How many shrikes are they selling? What about IFF, now? How many IH lists are using him?

Centurions are a new kit, right?

Yea it's not like GW literally nerfed the IH repulsor the minute it went out of stock or anything...wait a minute. IFF is still selling like hot cakes affording to suppliers. He still features in lists. What's your point?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Yea it's not like GW literally nerfed the IH repulsor the minute it went out of stock or anything...wait a minute. IFF is still selling like hot cakes affording to suppliers. He still features in lists. What's your point?

You dont recall they nerfed the Executioner BEFORE the marine books?

Hey, where's all the busted Impulsors? Infiltrators? Incursors?

"According to suppliers" = some unprovable crap I made up to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

It says that marines sell well regardless of their rules, not that they don't sell even better if they have stronger rules.

Let's say I sell ice cream. I'm successful at my job, selling a lot of ice cream. Some weeks I sell more, because there's a school class on a field trip stopping by my store. Regardless of whether any given week happens to be when the school class stops by or not, my ice cream sales outperform my coffee sales. This doesn't mean that the school class has no effect on my ice cream sales, only that they're not necessary for my ice cream sales to be high relative to my coffee sales.

In other words, Marines sell worse without good rules, but the absence of good rules (and the loss of sales that entails) does not change the fact that Marines still sell well, even after such a loss in powerful rules.

You could make an argument about the definition of "well", but that'd be overdoing it.

EDIT: Gah, and now I've gone and answered when I said I wouldnt.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

"According to suppliers" = some unprovable crap I made up to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

Ugh, I thought you listened to podcasts. See Chapter tactics, signals from the front line etc. They sell product. They often talk about the popularity of some models. IFF are sold out and very popular even post nerf, if they are to be believed.

Now calm yourself. Your white knighting of GW is becoming obscene. And you still haven't explained your point

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It says that marines sell well regardless of their rules, not that they don't sell even better if they have stronger rules.

Let's say I sell ice cream. I'm successful at my job, selling a lot of ice cream. Some weeks I sell more, because there's a school class on a field trip stopping by my store. Regardless of whether any given week happens to be when the school class stops by or not, my ice cream sales outperform my coffee sales. This doesn't mean that the school class has no effect on my ice cream sales, only that they're not necessary for my ice cream sales to be high relative to my coffee sales.

In other words, Marines sell worse without good rules, but the absence of good rules (and the loss of sales that entails) does not change the fact that Marines still sell well, even after such a loss in powerful rules.

You could make an argument about the definition of "well", but that'd be overdoing it.

EDIT: Gah, and now I've gone and answered when I said I wouldnt.

This is not in dispute.

It's the assertion that GW deliberately crafts the rules to create sales. And apparently more so for marines, because Ynnari and Castellans were never a thing.

Never assign malice when incompetence will suffice.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It says that marines sell well regardless of their rules, not that they don't sell even better if they have stronger rules.

Let's say I sell ice cream. I'm successful at my job, selling a lot of ice cream. Some weeks I sell more, because there's a school class on a field trip stopping by my store. Regardless of whether any given week happens to be when the school class stops by or not, my ice cream sales outperform my coffee sales. This doesn't mean that the school class has no effect on my ice cream sales, only that they're not necessary for my ice cream sales to be high relative to my coffee sales.

In other words, Marines sell worse without good rules, but the absence of good rules (and the loss of sales that entails) does not change the fact that Marines still sell well, even after such a loss in powerful rules.

You could make an argument about the definition of "well", but that'd be overdoing it.

EDIT: Gah, and now I've gone and answered when I said I wouldnt.

I'm glad you answered to be fair. I don't think Brian's point is as clear cut as you think from his statement. I also think a definition of 'well' would be useful in this context. Better than other factions? More sales than any other faction bar none?

When GW push Marines in the fluff, and release new models for them, and push them on people starting the hobby in their stores or buying the starter kit, I'm not sure its surprising that huge numbers of people have a Marine army.

When Marine rules are good, its not surprising they get dusted off and swamp stores and Tournaments all over the world.

I really feel marketting is what sells here, rather than "I just love power armour! I love it so much!"

If we go back to 2nd Edition I am very confident Orks were the second played faction after Marines. They were in the starter. They had a fair few interesting plastic vehicle kits. They appeared endlessly in say White Dwarf (which I think was a much more influential publication than it is today).

Then whoever was pushing Orks clearly moved on. The releases dried up. Their codexes became rubbish. They ceased being marketted. Just collecting the army is difficult, for instance because most of the HQs were not available to buy. Have a pain boy in the start collecting - thats useful, I guess?

Then GW did an Ork release - but it was just... weird. All the vehicles, most/all of which were overcosted. But again, even if love vehicles, due to the flaws of the detachment system, there isn't an especially obvious way to play them. Or at least not a way to play them that doesn't obviously hamstring you.

There are similar criticisms for DE - the three patrols system was dead on arrival - and having just 1 non-special character HQ per mini-faction is incredibly limiting and boring. To some extent the reduction in the Ynnari character costs may allow for some rubber-banding, but its still an obvious weakness that could be resolved very easily.

But GW don't want to release 3 DE characters and have not done so for half a decade. So sucks to be you I guess.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

"According to suppliers" = some unprovable crap I made up to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

Ugh, I thought you listened to podcasts. See Chapter tactics, signals from the front line etc. They sell product. They often talk about the popularity of some models. IFF are sold out and very popular even post nerf, if they are to be believed.

Now calm yourself. Your white knighting of GW is becoming obscene. And you still haven't explained your point

I'm so exhausted from the intellectually dishonest arguments that can only hide behind "white knight" label as some sort of evidence.

And you know what? Arguing with brick walls does nothing, so you guys can keep crying and I'll go live my life.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is not in dispute.

It's the assertion that GW deliberately crafts the rules to create sales. And apparently more so for marines, because Ynnari and Castellans were never a thing.

Never assign malice when incompetence will suffice.

We know this has happened. It has been said by ex GW employees convincingly and repeatedly.

There's a preference for Marines (hence where we are now) likely because they have more new models than other factions combined but there are other models that get the same treatment, you've just named 2 examples in Ynnari (likely unintentional) and Castellans. If you think the Castellan ridiculousness was anything less than intentional and not completely aimed at driving sales you are quite naive in my opinion.

Look at the new Ad Mech HQ, its also stupidly priced.
The new Ad Mech tank, stupidly priced.
The new GSC stuff when that was released.
The Disco Lord.

There are examples in every release of a hot, key new model that is aggressively pointed and priced (in money). They aren't a weird, repeating fluke.

What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

The thing is I don't believe Wraithknights were pointed to be overpowered - they were pointed to fit the rought money/point combination GW likes, so that the average player, building an average army, spends such and such an amount of money.

If the Wraithknight had gone up 100 points, that would have been one less box of scatbikes sold.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons. For example I suspect that GW assumed the new Ork buggies would sell regardless of their rules so they are all 'meh' to 'awful' on the competitive scale. E - that said, the most expensive point for point model in the Ork arsenal (Mek Guns) are very, very good. I'm struggling to see the relevance of the first Marine codex at the start of 8th but I'd say Thunderfire Cannons have always been very good this edition.

The argument is not "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" the argument is; "we know that GW have done this exact thing before and if something looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck and we've seen ducks in this pond before it's probably a duck."

I thought the new buggies were at least usable outside the dumb squig one. Huh.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons.

Why? Why would GW intentionally make less money? The far easier explanation is that they're just incompetent.

You're ignoring Hanlon's razor in order to squeeze GWs actions into hating xeno factions, and you're doing so in exactly the way I've argued: "It looks like a duck, so it's a duck!". You even said so yourself. What if it turns out to be a mallard?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I thought the new buggies were at least usable outside the dumb squig one. Huh.

They probably are but this is Dakka so if its not top-tier then its trash.

Hmm, I seem to remember this thread being about an eldar book...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I thought the new buggies were at least usable outside the dumb squig one. Huh.

Define "usable"? I use them on a regular basis. My army does not do well against a "competitive" list. They don't feature in any competitive Ork lists at all currently.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons.

Why? Why would GW intentionally make less money? The far easier explanation is that they're just incompetent.

Who said anything about making less money? I literally explained your query in the rest of my post, that you purposefully removed from your quotation.

Quick question as a returning player....as I am going to collect Eldar as one of my forces, do I buy the existing Craftworlds Codex or do I get this as its more upto date?

VAYASEN wrote:
Quick question as a returning player....as I am going to collect Eldar as one of my forces, do I buy the existing Craftworlds Codex or do I get this as its more upto date?

You get the codex. This only contains rules for Jain Zar, Banshees, a set of psy powers, custom traits and new Exarch abilities. It doesn't have other units, stratagems and so on.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I thought the new buggies were at least usable outside the dumb squig one. Huh.

Its going offtopic - but I think all of them are at least 20, maybe 30 points overcosted. Which is a lot given they are not that expensive.
The Squig one is just a complete rules screw up. It should have at least 3 times as many shots. Right now its probably worth 50-60 points.

Cross-faction like for likes are often difficult, but you compare say a Ravager at 125 points for any of the Ork Vehicles and its not a contest.

Some of this is a meta issue - I think ITC and ETC can be hard on light vehicles - but really you can look at the output and defensive stats for the points and see the problem.

The codex is all you need to get started, phoenix rises isn't really necessary unless you want to use the updated units or want some extra options.

arent the new traits ofr flyer exarchs obligatory, as they make them much better?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons.

Why? Why would GW intentionally make less money? The far easier explanation is that they're just incompetent.

Who said anything about making less money? I literally explained your query in the rest of my post, that you purposefully removed from your quotation.

If having preferential rules increases the sales for Space Marines, would not having preferential rules likewise mean more sales of Orks? Assuming this is the case, by not having preferential treatment for Orks, GW would intentionally be reducing sales of their product. That doesn't make sense.

Your explanation didn't explain why GW would purposely be skipping giving certain factions more powerful rules as a policy, it provided a plausible explanation for why they didn't give the Ork Buggies preferential treatment (which, by the way, disproves the notion that there's always a new hot undercosted model). Still not an explanation for the bunch of other cases where there wasn't any new hotness (SM 1.0, GK, AdMech, CSM and so on).

ahh, but remember they WANT Marines to sell out more then other factions because......

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons.

Why? Why would GW intentionally make less money? The far easier explanation is that they're just incompetent.

Who said anything about making less money? I literally explained your query in the rest of my post, that you purposefully removed from your quotation.

If having preferential rules increases the sales for Space Marines, would not having preferential rules likewise mean more sales of Orks?

Not necessarily, but likely.

Assuming this is the case, by not having preferential treatment for Orks, GW would intentionally be reducing sales of their product. That doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't. And they didn't. What they did do was release one of the most powerful codexes in Orks then slowly nerfed it and increased the power of other codexes over time. Remember when we could mob up lootas and Meganobz? Fight twice at any point in the round? You realise that the most powerful Mek Gun in the index was the KMK then it oddly switched to the Smasha in our codex. Almost like GW want to encourage people to buy one set of expensive kits then have to buy another set. Weird huh?

The Castellan is the perfect example of a unit clearly pointed around profit. And GW milked it as long as they could.

Most releases have a unit or rules like this. I stated as such in my original post. GW may not want to push a particular faction for one reason or another (stock levels, profit margins, opportunity sales on other products etc) but generally each faction has a 'star' unit and each faction has a time when it is powerful before another faction becomes more so and so on. Marines, since they have more releases more frequently than other factions, generally get a better turnaround on this cycle than say, Necrons. As we can now see in their v2 codex - something unique and a first in 8th.

Arguing both sides of the coin.

Buffs = sales.
Nerfs = sales.

Pointless to argue with specious arguments as GW can literally do nothing without it being linked to a sales conspiracy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is not in dispute.

It's the assertion that GW deliberately crafts the rules to create sales. And apparently more so for marines, because Ynnari and Castellans were never a thing.

Never assign malice when incompetence will suffice.

Of course they craft rules to sell models. That's how their business works. C'mon man, you can't be that naive. They have direct control over what is good (what will sell) and what is bad (what will not sell).

Do you have a favorite televangelist you could recommend we donate to as well?

 dotcomee wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is not in dispute.

It's the assertion that GW deliberately crafts the rules to create sales. And apparently more so for marines, because Ynnari and Castellans were never a thing.

Never assign malice when incompetence will suffice.

Of course they craft rules to sell models. That's how their business works. C'mon man, you can't be that naive. They have direct control over what is good (what will sell) and what is bad (what will not sell).

Do you have a favorite televangelist you could recommend we donate to as well?

Design, cut, mold, and produce models all so they dont sell...

What business school did you go to?

I don't believe either, that - bluntly put - GW makes "crap rules" for newly released units to keep the sales of them artificially low. I would wager that apart from the most competitive kind of gamer who would only collect the top 10% performing units of each faction to take them to a tournament, every model's sales figure would benefit from having at least servicable rules.

There is a point to make that GW could keep changing very intenionally which unit for each codex is a top dog in every iteration to keep the meta from stalling. In the video game industry this is an observable process for competitive games like League of Legends or Dota 2.

Karol wrote:
arent the new traits ofr flyer exarchs obligatory, as they make them much better?

They're an option, it's up to each player to decide whether they want to use the options presented.

some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

yeah, for a few months I actually believed that. But after the reaction to IH codex, I now know that the all those casual players in other countries care for the rules just as much as people here do. So I think your wrong or moraly grand standing here.

even in this thread people playing eldar say that they are going to use the new rules for their flyers.

the flyer buffs are impressive but they gobble up CP at a rate, so it sort of depends on if you need those CP for other dirty elf tricks

plus my nerf sense is tingling that something will happen to CHE come CA2019 (whilst the new marine hotness remains untouched ofc)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's the aggressively costed, hot new Ork model? Grey Knights? What was the new, aggressively costed model when the first Marine Codex was released at the start of 8th?

We know that GW does fudge points in order to sell models from the interivew with that one designer who said that was why Wraithknighs were stupid in 7th edition. We don't have any way of distinguishing between such corruption and old-fashioned incompetence on GWs part though. This is more of the "this could be the case, so it has to be true!" stuff that I've been arguing against all along.

I'd wager than certain factions are exempt from the preferential rule hotness for various reasons.

Why? Why would GW intentionally make less money? The far easier explanation is that they're just incompetent.

Who said anything about making less money? I literally explained your query in the rest of my post, that you purposefully removed from your quotation.

If having preferential rules increases the sales for Space Marines, would not having preferential rules likewise mean more sales of Orks? Assuming this is the case, by not having preferential treatment for Orks, GW would intentionally be reducing sales of their product. That doesn't make sense.

Your explanation didn't explain why GW would purposely be skipping giving certain factions more powerful rules as a policy, it provided a plausible explanation for why they didn't give the Ork Buggies preferential treatment (which, by the way, disproves the notion that there's always a new hot undercosted model). Still not an explanation for the bunch of other cases where there wasn't any new hotness (SM 1.0, GK, AdMech, CSM and so on).

It`s quite simple. GW have limited production, so they can optimize it with selling one kit more times, than to produce multiple kits.
Also reworking models is not so profitable, since most old players have the old models.
SM 1.0 is probably considered fail by GW standards, so with SM 2 they ignored testing and created rules that will sell their pile in models.
There is a reason Falcon was putted in the box and every new box have vyper in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

Casual hobbyist will not go and buy 18 centurions. Casuals maybe get 1-2 box for 2-3 mounts, because they spend their time to paint the minis to their best standards.

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

Well, I've got 6000+ points of painted craftworlds and not a single flyer, so I'd maintain that it's all optional.

I likewise own 6,000 points of Eldar and not a single flyer. In fact someone bought me one for a Christmas gift and I sold it to fund more terrain.

It's akin to playing Tau but not running two Riptides and 40 shield drones. You'll still take all the flak for running Tau in certain metas, even if your army is sub-par and nothing special.

Eldar are a decidedly okay book, but if you remove a handful of mega-units, they're nothing special. Fully 60-70% of the codex units are "sub par" when it comes to game strength or efficiency. I'd say casual Eldar lists can be really horrendous if you're not paying attention or building for flavor over strength.

I am certainly holding off getting and CHE until after CA21019, but currently have 2 hemlocks which fits my wraith themed army better anyway.

If the CHE is not touched points wise, I'd be shocked, especially with what GW did to my poor dark talon bumping it 40pts (way over reacting).

 Elbows wrote:


Eldar are a decidedly okay book, but if you remove a handful of mega-units, they're nothing special. Fully 60-70% of the codex units are "sub par" when it comes to game strength or efficiency. I'd say casual Eldar lists can be really horrendous if you're not paying attention or building for flavor over strength.

I don't think you can know what sub par is, when you always have the option to run the good units. I play weekly against eldar players, who don't go to tournaments and have non optimised lists. They are all far from being sub par, both in rules, unit costs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why did it take over two years?
What were Ynnari and Castellans doing at top tables? Are they favorites, too? And the soup that powered them? I seem to recall IS were 'incredibly strong' being 4 points.

My statement had nothing to do with timeframes, but I'm also not terribly surprised to see you jump in with a completely unrelated defense. Crusade on Daed, GW will reward your loyalty someday, I'm sure.

PA isn't a crap book. I was wrong.

It just isn't powerful, and is way behind the SM curve, that's all...

However, I have to say I've had 100% wins with my pure CWE since I switched to custome traits, MSU Spears, and MSU spam in general. And boy they are more fun to play.

Case in point: 8-man storm guardian squad with two fusions, with expert crafters, are a fearsome threat now, for 76pts. They are awesome against primaris, and just delete 2 marines every round they fire. A lot of my lists start with 3 squads, 2 in WSs, one in the web.

I've had a lot of success running 3x3 spears, hiding them backfield, and taking it in tursn to slingshot them one squad at a time to go interfere with quicken, to hunt and shut down my opponent's key units.

I've even had some success with weird units like BL Vypers, due to rerollling that BL's hit and wound. Wraithseers with wraithcannons. Single warwalkers. Vibro cannon spam. hornets. That kinda thing. Previously playing Alaitoc I felt constricted in my listbuilding and movement, now I can threat saturate, never say die due to every unit in my list having some AT punch, and a jump in survivability with CHEs, Wave Serpents, Vypers, Wraithseers and Hornets all carrying a 2+ save most of the game.

Finally, Banshees got piercing strike, for killing aggressors and the like (only viable with crafters), Avengers got bladestorm that made them very accurate, CHEs got a huge buff when crossed with Crafters, And boy do MSU Spears love a 3++ 3w exarch.

I'm happy with the book, when my first reaction was sniffy. I don't think it brings CWE back into the top tier, but it does give them tools to play in a whole new and very enjoyable way, which is great news imo. But so much of that is how expert crafters syncs with the previously reroll-starved CWE roster...

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why did it take over two years?
What were Ynnari and Castellans doing at top tables? Are they favorites, too? And the soup that powered them? I seem to recall IS were 'incredibly strong' being 4 points.

My statement had nothing to do with timeframes, but I'm also not terribly surprised to see you jump in with a completely unrelated defense. Crusade on Daed, GW will reward your loyalty someday, I'm sure.

Yea, check is in the mail.

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

Casual hobbyist will not go and buy 18 centurions. Casuals maybe get 1-2 box for 2-3 mounts, because they spend their time to paint the minis to their best standards.

what the feth does that have to do with anything? or are you just so focused on screaming about Marines you're unable to understand what was being said.

Someone noted that Pheonix Rising was an option not, strictly speaking, nesscary. Karol tried to argue with that by making a comparison to sports supplements etc. I noted that sports supplements etc are only used by those engaging in high levels of compeitiveness and generally aren't used by Ricky Junior at the 8 year old hockey rink.

Hey, Brian. Just a mention that, if a book makes your army strictly better, then it's not really much of an option anymore. Even casual hobbyists (most of whom are 50/50 between games with friends and blind matches) are aware of this much.

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


Eldar are a decidedly okay book, but if you remove a handful of mega-units, they're nothing special. Fully 60-70% of the codex units are "sub par" when it comes to game strength or efficiency. I'd say casual Eldar lists can be really horrendous if you're not paying attention or building for flavor over strength.

I don't think you can know what sub par is, when you always have the option to run the good units. I play weekly against eldar players, who don't go to tournaments and have non optimised lists. They are all far from being sub par, both in rules, unit costs.

What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Darsath wrote:
Hey, Brian. Just a mention that, if a book makes your army strictly better, then it's not really much of an option anymore. Even casual hobbyists (most of whom are 50/50 between games with friends and blind matches) are aware of this much.

maybe but if I was just starting out in 40k, I don't NEED supplement X and campaign book Y. nice to have? absolutely, something I should pick up when I wanna be serious? totally. "nesscary" no

BrianDavion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Hey, Brian. Just a mention that, if a book makes your army strictly better, then it's not really much of an option anymore. Even casual hobbyists (most of whom are 50/50 between games with friends and blind matches) are aware of this much.

maybe but if I was just starting out in 40k, I don't NEED supplement X and campaign book Y. nice to have? absolutely, something I should pick up when I wanna be serious? totally. "nesscary" no

Campaign books are not needed. Supplements, or books that make the base codex strictly better are necessary, yes. You'll be fighting an uphill battle vs not buying it.

BrianDavion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Hey, Brian. Just a mention that, if a book makes your army strictly better, then it's not really much of an option anymore. Even casual hobbyists (most of whom are 50/50 between games with friends and blind matches) are aware of this much.

maybe but if I was just starting out in 40k, I don't NEED supplement X and campaign book Y. nice to have? absolutely, something I should pick up when I wanna be serious? totally. "nesscary" no

You mean until you loose your first game, and people ask you why you didn't use the new doctrines, strats & traits & relics ? And you realise how much stronger your army is for free? You wont even need the book. people will just tell you the traits/doctrines. You think a new player wont be adding those on even if they don't have the book ? LOL...

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


Eldar are a decidedly okay book, but if you remove a handful of mega-units, they're nothing special. Fully 60-70% of the codex units are "sub par" when it comes to game strength or efficiency. I'd say casual Eldar lists can be really horrendous if you're not paying attention or building for flavor over strength.

I don't think you can know what sub par is, when you always have the option to run the good units. I play weekly against eldar players, who don't go to tournaments and have non optimised lists. They are all far from being sub par, both in rules, unit costs.

What exactly are they running in their lists? Are all the lists more or less the same ?
Then they are not using sub par units. If you think GK is the only army with sub par units and CWE is somehow all top tier units I have to tell you are severely mistaken. Take the CHE/WS away and the faction really has little else... As you said "just take 6 fliers" does not show there is a problem? Because you have to take those fliers? Yeh they are very good and much better than everything else we have. Nobody is arguing they are not.

As grouchoben said; I was also very disappointed with PR ( I even Bought it believe it or not). But Actually I think it really allows CWE to play in a whole new way and really opens up for experimentation. The combination of faction traits opens up different builds. Is it OP broken ? No, and that's a very good point? Is CHE an auto take? yes - But it has been all codex so...

Its a shame they didn't bother doing warlord traits and relics that irks me.

Again I'm also in the no CHE club. I think its a crutch the limping codex has been forced to rely on due to a systemic roll out of nerfs, points increases due to ynnari... I like to use stuff people don't see on the table very often because I think it makes more interesting games. People looked at me like I was crazy when I fielded my DA, vibro cannons, Wraith lords and warp spiders. Only one serpent? No CHE? Why you even play ?

It is funny how this book is now seen as "strictly not optional due to power increase" given the first post of this thread and thread title.

I have the feeling you guys don't understand Brian or don't want to. Yes, if you play the army of a supplement and it makes that army stronger you will pick it up eventually.

No, there is no rules police who will prevent you from playing your faction without the latest PA rules. Aeldari are still at 95% of their power if they don't use these rules.

a_typical_hero wrote:
It is funny how this book is now seen as "strictly not optional due to power increase" given the first post of this thread and thread title.

I have the feeling you guys don't understand Brian or don't want to. Yes, if you play the army of a supplement and it makes that army stronger you will pick it up eventually.

No, there is no rules police who will prevent you from playing your faction without the latest PA rules. Aeldari are still at 95% of their power if they don't use these rules.

We are saying PR rules is optional because its a sideways upgrade. Arguably its a downgrade as alitoic overall is still probably better. Exarch powers again pick one and you will only ever use that one and exarchs already have an innate power anyway so its not like the rules were not there and now they are...
By not using PR your army is not going to be underperforming, for the most part.

SM supplements just are vastly superior and make your army better in all phases of the game and give better options... Its like a fact.
By not using them for your chapter you are essentialy crippling yourself.. Its kind of obvious, no? Im not saying players need to run out and buy the book, but I'm saying they would be playing with the rules if that is their chapters.

Ya'll saying: "Of course you will use it eventualy" = translates; You need it... Obviously a s anew player you don't need gak. You can play with bottle caps, beer cans and cheetah packets.... and some gray plastic.
And if we really want to get in the dirty... You "technicaly" only need the core rules pamthlet to play and don't need FAQ's & erratas. So where do we draw this line eh?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wouldn't expect someone new to own the supplement, but id certainly let them use the doctrines because those are kind of the rules now, and would feel like he's doing himself a disservice... I don't need a win handed to me. I want fair competition.

For me, the book is a complete upgrade. iyanden trait really did nothing for me, the only benefit was the psytronome, which is extremely situational. Custom doctrines, however, have been a breath of fresh air for my wraiths. reroll wounds of 1 is great for my hemlocks, wraithlords, wraithblades. Still playing with my second choice.

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Removed - Rule #1 please.

I know that this is going to throw a mess in here, but reading text dramas is the only purpose of this forum, so i will do it anyway.

In the last games of Heat4 yesterday, even with 9 IF 6 IH and 6 UM partecipating, the top table was drukhary vs drukhary + harleys.

Rememember that GW heats are the most competitive tournaments around using the standard ruleset (CA18 at 1750), so they are the most important indicators on the state of the game balance wise.

After seeing that game, i'm not that angry that SM got a huge buff and aeldari a quite mild one...

 Elbows wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Removed - Rule #1 please.

First, rule 1.
Secondly he has a point, as much as you hate to admit it.
Not saying the whole Mounting defense /hypocrite is the right assumption but there are dexes out there that can't even perform against obsolete codex units.

Spoletta wrote:
I know that this is going to throw a mess in here, but reading text dramas is the only purpose of this forum, so i will do it anyway.

In the last games of Heat4 yesterday, even with 9 IF 6 IH and 6 UM partecipating, the top table was drukhary vs drukhary + harleys.

Rememember that GW heats are the most competitive tournaments around using the standard ruleset (CA18 at 1750), so they are the most important indicators on the state of the game balance wise.

After seeing that game, i'm not that angry that SM got a huge buff and aeldari a quite mild one...

Marines definitely needed a boost, we'll just have to see if he overcorrected in the months to come.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Removed - Rule #1 please.

First, rule 1.
Secondly he has a point, as much as you hate to admit it.
Not saying the whole Mounting defense /hypocrite is the right assumption but there are dexes out there that can't even perform against obsolete codex units.

Nope. He doesn't have a point. In fact he responded to a point I didn't make and then decided to put words into the mouth of every Eldar player. This is one of the most common bs fallacies on DakkaDakka. If you "can" make a good list from your codex, your codex is amazing and thus you're seemingly not allowed to actually critique anything else in the book? That's a gak stupid argument.

Why respond to my post if he's responding to something I didn't say? Oh wait, that's right...Eldar have been good before so I'm not allowed to critique anything in the book. Fair point.

I agree, why is "the best unit the norm"? Some players play units they like lookwise, or lorewise or simply because they own them.

BrianDavion wrote:

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

Casual hobbyist will not go and buy 18 centurions. Casuals maybe get 1-2 box for 2-3 mounts, because they spend their time to paint the minis to their best standards.

what the feth does that have to do with anything? or are you just so focused on screaming about Marines you're unable to understand what was being said.

Someone noted that Pheonix Rising was an option not, strictly speaking, nesscary. Karol tried to argue with that by making a comparison to sports supplements etc. I noted that sports supplements etc are only used by those engaging in high levels of compeitiveness and generally aren't used by Ricky Junior at the 8 year old hockey rink.

Simple, hobbyist don`t update or play their army often, they don`t know most of the rules, so every book for them is optional.
Most players who play at least 1-2 game per mount will know about the rules and will get the book(or use illegal copy).

If you use that logic FAQs and errata are also optional, because most of the casuals don`t read or care about them.
Point increase and decrease is CA, also optional, because most people wont spend 40 euros for book.
If we did not have battlescribe most of the games will be with illegal lists.
Also since WD and PA is not mandatory, you wont like if someone bring index Ynnari.

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

Casual hobbyist will not go and buy 18 centurions. Casuals maybe get 1-2 box for 2-3 mounts, because they spend their time to paint the minis to their best standards.

what the feth does that have to do with anything? or are you just so focused on screaming about Marines you're unable to understand what was being said.

Someone noted that Pheonix Rising was an option not, strictly speaking, nesscary. Karol tried to argue with that by making a comparison to sports supplements etc. I noted that sports supplements etc are only used by those engaging in high levels of compeitiveness and generally aren't used by Ricky Junior at the 8 year old hockey rink.

Simple, hobbyist don`t update or play their army often, they don`t know most of the rules, so every book for them is optional.
Most players who play at least 1-2 game per mount will know about the rules and will get the book(or use illegal copy).

If you use that logic FAQs and errata are also optional, because most of the casuals don`t read or care about them.
Point increase and decrease is CA, also optional, because most people wont spend 40 euros for book.
If we did not have battlescribe most of the games will be with illegal lists.
Also since WD and PA is not mandatory, you wont like if someone bring index Ynnari.

I think you are missing the point. Karol said that some options aren't really options because you'll always use the strongest one anyways. That you'll "self-optimise" like a professional athlete. And to a certain degree, he is right, but most/many/some players are not "professional" players so they don't need to self optimize in the same way that a casual athlete does not need to.

For some part of the playerbase it is an option so you wouldn't NEED the book. If I don't use the option, I don't need the book.

As FAQs and Errate affect almost all units in my book, I still need them, so they behave differently to supplements like PA

Spoletta wrote:
I know that this is going to throw a mess in here, but reading text dramas is the only purpose of this forum, so i will do it anyway.

In the last games of Heat4 yesterday, even with 9 IF 6 IH and 6 UM partecipating, the top table was drukhary vs drukhary + harleys.

Rememember that GW heats are the most competitive tournaments around using the standard ruleset (CA18 at 1750), so they are the most important indicators on the state of the game balance wise.

After seeing that game, i'm not that angry that SM got a huge buff and aeldari a quite mild one...

Heat tournaments are not well documented(atlest i could not find anything).
So it` impossible to make conclusions, since you don`t have the results list and the format is out of the ordinary.
What look like sure thing is that people bringing so many SM list, shows that the army is strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Marin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
some options aren't options, if an option makes something strictly better in every aspect, then other options or not having the options then it stops being a question of wanting it or not.

Its like diet and supplements in sport. stronger engine for a car etc

you mean utterly irrelevant for the casual hobbist and only important at the highest levels of compeition?

Casual hobbyist will not go and buy 18 centurions. Casuals maybe get 1-2 box for 2-3 mounts, because they spend their time to paint the minis to their best standards.

what the feth does that have to do with anything? or are you just so focused on screaming about Marines you're unable to understand what was being said.

Someone noted that Pheonix Rising was an option not, strictly speaking, nesscary. Karol tried to argue with that by making a comparison to sports supplements etc. I noted that sports supplements etc are only used by those engaging in high levels of compeitiveness and generally aren't used by Ricky Junior at the 8 year old hockey rink.

Simple, hobbyist don`t update or play their army often, they don`t know most of the rules, so every book for them is optional.
Most players who play at least 1-2 game per mount will know about the rules and will get the book(or use illegal copy).

If you use that logic FAQs and errata are also optional, because most of the casuals don`t read or care about them.
Point increase and decrease is CA, also optional, because most people wont spend 40 euros for book.
If we did not have battlescribe most of the games will be with illegal lists.
Also since WD and PA is not mandatory, you wont like if someone bring index Ynnari.

I think you are missing the point. Karol said that some options aren't really options because you'll always use the strongest one anyways. That you'll "self-optimise" like a professional athlete. And to a certain degree, he is right, but most/many/some players are not "professional" players so they don't need to self optimize the same way that a casual athlete does.

For some part of the playerbase it is an option so you wouldn't NEED the book. If I don't use the option, I don't need the book.

As FAQs and Errate affect almost all units in my book, I still need them, so they behave differently to supplements like PA

I`m not missing anything, even the most casual athlete will try to have better chance. Even casual soccer players will get the best shoes and gear he can afford.
Have friend who got tired of losing with his AM, so he got 3 tanks and baneblade, because he thought that will increase his chance of winning. He is using Vigilus also, al through he did not got the book.
No one like to lose and most players will go and check forums for advice, so they learn about this stuff sooner or latter.
The only people that don`t need such book are the collectors, that simple don`t have the game or do it couple of times per year.

Waaaghbert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Elbows wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Removed - Rule #1 please.

First, rule 1.
Secondly he has a point, as much as you hate to admit it.
Not saying the whole Mounting defense /hypocrite is the right assumption but there are dexes out there that can't even perform against obsolete codex units.

Nope. He doesn't have a point. In fact he responded to a point I didn't make and then decided to put words into the mouth of every Eldar player. This is one of the most common bs fallacies on DakkaDakka. If you "can" make a good list from your codex, your codex is amazing and thus you're seemingly not allowed to actually critique anything else in the book? That's a gak stupid argument.

Why respond to my post if he's responding to something I didn't say? Oh wait, that's right...Eldar have been good before so I'm not allowed to critique anything in the book. Fair point.

I agree, why is "the best unit the norm"? Some players play units they like lookwise, or lorewise or simply because they own them.

ohh agreed. if your codex has ONE good option, that's NOT a good codex, even if people are winning tournies by spamming that good option. A god codex is one that can perform well against most adversaries it deals with with a decent number of builds. not a codex that you can win by spamming literally ANYTHING, but a codex, that works well and whose parts interact together to form something that feels right.

if you have a single good choice that is used often in soup recpies that's not going to mean a whole lot for someone who really wants his entire ARMY to perform well. and it's the height of arrogance to say "ohh well you can ust win with soup" try telling a grey knight player his codex is "great" because "ohh well GMDKs are really strong and you can soup one of those with Imperium"

As a returning player, not sure if this is the right place for this, if not, apologies.

One of the armies im buying for my return is Eldar.

I understand that(from advice on here) that buying the Eldar Codex comes first before this book.

My concern is with the Eldar box, will a new Codex be appearing shortly do you think?

Also, im baffled re the Eldar boxes. I cant see howling Banshees at all on the GW site? Are we likely to be seeing new Aspect figures soon or is this a silly question?

One last thing, that huge Wraithknight figure, I cant see it on Battlescribe(new to BS too). Is it on there and how many points? It might be in the codex I guess, but thats in the post to me so no idea.

Thanks and apologies if this is nothing to do with Phoenix Rising(think its an eldar themed book though?)

VAYASEN wrote:
As a returning player, not sure if this is the right place for this, if not, apologies.

One of the armies im buying for my return is Eldar.

I understand that(from advice on here) that buying the Eldar Codex comes first before this book.

My concern is with the Eldar box, will a new Codex be appearing shortly do you think?

Also, im baffled re the Eldar boxes. I cant see howling Banshees at all on the GW site? Are we likely to be seeing new Aspect figures soon or is this a silly question?

One last thing, that huge Wraithknight figure, I cant see it on Battlescribe(new to BS too). Is it on there and how many points? It might be in the codex I guess, but thats in the post to me so no idea.

Thanks and apologies if this is nothing to do with Phoenix Rising(think its an eldar themed book though?)

I don`t think new Aeldar codex will appear soon, but you can save some money and get cheaper used copy or use other means.
Aeldar starting box is terrible and we have to wait until they release plastic banshees in their own kit.
For now i don`t think we will see new aspect in foreseeable feature.
Wraithknight can be put only in certain detachments, by memory in supreme command, super heavy auxiliary detachment and super heavy detachment.
Check BS for the points, since you can change the wargear.

BrianDavion wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Elbows wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Elbows wrote:



What kind of asinine logic is that? Someone is suddenly incapable of judging the value of a unit because they have access to another good unit? Explain yourself.

Why would you care about the worse units. The norm is the good units, not the bad ones. Heck even on this very forum, when I try to compare stuff to the stuff my army gets, am being told I shouldn't do that.

as for the eldar specific stuff, I find the idea of an eldar player saying his codex or units in it being sub par laughable. you can take 5-6 flyers and the worse unit in the eldar book, and you still are going to have an army working better then what the best version of an army out of my codex can do.
So yeah after all editions of being at least good and almost always OP at some time of an edition, eldar players would not be able to judge what good or bad means. It is only proven by months of eldar player mounting defence of how Inari were not OP, and at the same their rather hypocrite reaction to when IH got a better book.

Removed - Rule #1 please.

First, rule 1.
Secondly he has a point, as much as you hate to admit it.
Not saying the whole Mounting defense /hypocrite is the right assumption but there are dexes out there that can't even perform against obsolete codex units.

Nope. He doesn't have a point. In fact he responded to a point I didn't make and then decided to put words into the mouth of every Eldar player. This is one of the most common bs fallacies on DakkaDakka. If you "can" make a good list from your codex, your codex is amazing and thus you're seemingly not allowed to actually critique anything else in the book? That's a gak stupid argument.

Why respond to my post if he's responding to something I didn't say? Oh wait, that's right...Eldar have been good before so I'm not allowed to critique anything in the book. Fair point.

I agree, why is "the best unit the norm"? Some players play units they like lookwise, or lorewise or simply because they own them.

ohh agreed. if your codex has ONE good option, that's NOT a good codex, even if people are winning tournies by spamming that good option. A god codex is one that can perform well against most adversaries it deals with with a decent number of builds. not a codex that you can win by spamming literally ANYTHING, but a codex, that works well and whose parts interact together to form something that feels right.

if you have a single good choice that is used often in soup recpies that's not going to mean a whole lot for someone who really wants his entire ARMY to perform well. and it's the height of arrogance to say "ohh well you can ust win with soup" try telling a grey knight player his codex is "great" because "ohh well GMDKs are really strong and you can soup one of those with Imperium"

The issue is, that for that to be workable, the dexes would need to be on par, they are not and we see this now. (infact GW doesn't even attempt to put them on equal footing see quality PA and CSM 2.0 compared too Supplements for marines +C:SM 2.0 )
What looks from an Eldar view subpar, is decidedly not subpar for other dexes (especially out of the viewpoint of GK, FW indexes etc.) Which are even further behind the Release cycle. Sub par is relative to what's available. (including Soup)
In a way most of these issues stem from the fact that GW does not really balance (even CA is questionable).Aswell as stating that 40 k is in a good place because most factions show up competitively.
Heck, Codex CSM 2.0 could be renamed in codex Slaaneshalphaobliterterminator with some purge seasoning, which refers to the 2 common soup content units and traits and marks.

VAYASEN wrote:
As a returning player, not sure if this is the right place for this, if not, apologies.

One of the armies im buying for my return is Eldar.

I understand that(from advice on here) that buying the Eldar Codex comes first before this book.

My concern is with the Eldar box, will a new Codex be appearing shortly do you think?

Also, im baffled re the Eldar boxes. I cant see howling Banshees at all on the GW site? Are we likely to be seeing new Aspect figures soon or is this a silly question?

One last thing, that huge Wraithknight figure, I cant see it on Battlescribe(new to BS too). Is it on there and how many points? It might be in the codex I guess, but thats in the post to me so no idea.

Thanks and apologies if this is nothing to do with Phoenix Rising(think its an eldar themed book though?)

Well, this is definitely not the right place for tactical advice.
Please go to the tactical thread at this board.