Castozor wrote: Imagine thinking adding GSC to the game is similar to the absolute ridiculous amount of primaris releases. GSC are their own army who happen to be able to ally with Tyranids just like Imperial and Chaos factions can with their books. Primaris were nothing more than adding bloat to what was already the most bloated faction in the game.
It's less about bloat and more about keeping pole position. When your main claim to fame is having some of the best mass produced kits on the market, having your main range be as outdated is a serious no no.
So the Space Marine line that was mostly no more than a couple of years old was 'outdated', but Tyranids having basic troops from 2001 is fine because their range is 'complete'.
And GSC count as Tyranids, despite nobody acting like Sisters count as Space Marines, because distinct armies within a superfaction only count as distinct if they're Imperial.
The Marine fanboying is out in full force tonight, it seems.
Edit: Oh yeah, and for the final act, Primaris don't count as new Marine models because they should be thought of as a separate product line. We're going to miss the forest for the trees and act like 'adding yet another Space Marine subfaction product line' is better than 'adding yet more units to existing Space Marine factions'. Amazing.
catbarf wrote: So the Space Marine line that was mostly no more than a couple of years old was 'outdated', but Tyranids having basic troops from 2001 is fine because their range is 'complete'.
And GSC count as Tyranids, despite nobody acting like Sisters count as Space Marines, because distinct armies within a superfaction only count as distinct if they're Imperial.
The Marine fanboying is out in full force tonight, it seems.
Yeah power armor guys, keep it at the Dudeface level where you sort of dance around these points but maintain plausible deniability. Don't jump to the ccs level where you just deny reality like this.
Castozor wrote: Imagine thinking adding GSC to the game is similar to the absolute ridiculous amount of primaris releases. GSC are their own army who happen to be able to ally with Tyranids just like Imperial and Chaos factions can with their books. Primaris were nothing more than adding bloat to what was already the most bloated faction in the game.
It's less about bloat and more about keeping pole position. When your main claim to fame is having some of the best mass produced kits on the market, having your main range be as outdated is a serious no no.
Outdated, like the firstborn kits that, outside of only a couple things like bikes that are, at most, 5 years old?
Castozor wrote: Imagine thinking adding GSC to the game is similar to the absolute ridiculous amount of primaris releases. GSC are their own army who happen to be able to ally with Tyranids just like Imperial and Chaos factions can with their books. Primaris were nothing more than adding bloat to what was already the most bloated faction in the game.
It's less about bloat and more about keeping pole position. When your main claim to fame is having some of the best mass produced kits on the market, having your main range be as outdated is a serious no no.
First of all, proper marines are by no means outdated. Secondly the fact that some consider them the "main" line is part of the problem. There is no reason SM should get twice the attention of the next faction. It's a self reinforcing cycle.
catbarf wrote: So the Space Marine line that was mostly no more than a couple of years old was 'outdated', but Tyranids having basic troops from 2001 is fine because their range is 'complete'.
And GSC count as Tyranids, despite nobody acting like Sisters count as Space Marines, because distinct armies within a superfaction only count as distinct if they're Imperial.
The Marine fanboying is out in full force tonight, it seems.
Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army. I only mention it because if I remember correctly, nothing could ally with Tyranids in 7th, and they were the only faction that had no allies. With GSC, they now have a couple of allies to give them something more to work with. I am a GSC player. If they all got rolled into the next nids codex, wouldn't hurt my feelings. Just makes it easier to include more than genestealers.
I never said that loyalist space marine line was outdated. I would say it was even more complete than any other faction to the point the new units (and grav weaponry for that matter) were trying to wedge themselves into already full niches. I will say that if I was GW and I was going to redo a faction's models, I would also probably pick loyalist space marines. They are the face of the flagship setting, they always sell well and they are the entry point for the majority of players given the ease of hobby and play they provide.
When it comes to Tyranids, obviously get rid of the fincast stuff. Also, I think the gants/guants could use a retooling to change out the split face they currently have. Maybe genestealers could use a refresh while being worthwhile as a kit that is likely purchased multiple times. Also, Warriors could maybe use a few more options like wings (for Shrikes) if enough space could be made on the sprues without increasing the number (it's been a while since I build nid Warriors so I don't remember how spacious their sprues are). Probably sacrilege, but consider moving some FW units over to GW main. Especially any of the units balencing on spinely resin legs/tails.
I like the majority of factions in both 40k and AoS. I don't have the time and space to make an army for all of them, though; I do have a kill team of just about everything. I don't see revealing my perception of what space marines are for GW and playerbase is fanboying. What space marines are and how they were setup (read: specialized chapters, etc.) means they are always going to be the lion's share of GW's profit. We can perform whataboutisms if any and every faction had the same or more effort of resources would be at also be at the same level.
I don't think any 40k faction would be equal or exceed space marines even if they were given more promotion and resources as marines. Any faction would certainly be doing better much than they are. Necrons and Sisters of Battle being a pretty strong case for that recently. But they don't have the Je ne sais quoi that space marines do. That's not me as a fan of space marines, that's me being honest with myself. I would rather space marines and Primaris especially be niche so I can be THEE Primaris player at my FLGS.
I also don't think Stormcast Enterals is a fair comparison. There isn't strong following of holy, immortal warriors in the fantasy genre. Sure, there is the paladin which is popular enough, but even in D&D they stand in the shadow of the fighter class. I think the rise in Aelf factions in AoS may be in part that is a far more popular icon in fantasy. Though, I think just maybe knights (a.k.a. Bretonians) could do extremely well. Much to my chingrin as I want AoS to start to put more distance from WHFB not less.
But what I want isn't what I think would work best. Same goes for space marines. They are always going to be a popular idea. There's a reason why large amount of non-GW media feature them. The idea of a space marine was well imprinted in my mind well before I ever heard of 40k. If anything, 40k space marines are less space marine than anything else I would call a space marine. They are space knights really. Which is close enough.
I want everyone to have a glut of model kits they enjoy as much as I have now. As mentioned, some people I want to curse to have to drink from that fire hose. That's not going to happen. If anything, I think I enjoy a much larger swath of the models GW produces than most on DakkaDakka. So it is difficult for over saturation as the OP described to occur with me. If all power armor blinked away and GSC didn't exist, I still could see me having an Admech, Tau and Necron army in their place. I am simply not that enamored with a single faction. Heck, my most played 40k faction is Orks by a lot due to Kill Team. I just don't really want a whole army of them. That sound like a space marine fanboy/girl to anyone?
Oh absolutely. They are selling the fantasy to Marine players that they are going to get to smack the crap out of various cool looking aliens, when in reality the game mostly consists of background inaccurate marine on marine battles.
But it is useful to have the odd Xenos player around to promote the fantasy, and sometimes someone on the design team gets excited about it so they let them do something. So they will update the ranges for those armies every so often, maybe every 6-20 years, and that works to keep Xenos players in the game in enough numbers to sustain the Marine players fantasies. In between they just sell as much stuff as possible to Marine players as their bread and butter.
I think they were trying to build the same model in AoS but I am not sure it really worked? They certainly gave Stormcast the majority of the attention but it is not as bad as in 40K. Pretty sad, one of the cool things about WFB was that it was more balanced in that sense.
So do you play 40k? Do you get off on being taken advantage of by a corporation?
I would probably say I have more than my share of 40k armies, including 4 space marine factions to the large list.
You can't say no one would do as well as them given equal treatment as it hasn't been tried, ever. More factions being on equal footing would if anything raise the sea level for everyone might mean less sales for marines but more for others.
Saying " But everyone loves space marines ! " Isn't always true. Sure, I do, but even I can see there is a negative side to this and others are waking up as well, marine vs marine is about the height of boredom, and we do have friends or ourselves play these less focused on factions and find it can be kinda crap.
All this never ending release cycle has done is take out the shadow of doubt about that bias and really cram it home.
There really is a lot of fanboy going around though to say they know beyond all doubt that doubling the marines units and making it years and years of marine releases couldn't have been better served as more rounded love to other factions in that same time period.
Just imagine the finecast removed, updated sculpts put out there more nuanced rules for everyone really, all this marine bloat unchecked will do is, in the end, kill the system as people just get super bored with marine vs marine every game and sooner or later it may turn into just that.
One of the comments here touched on something that I think ties into this.
I think that 40K was supposed to have a reset ala Sigmar in terms of rules and gameplay, and the Primaris were supposed to wholescale replace the firstborn. Then someone got cold feet or whatever and those changes got walked back. That's why you see this weird influx of all these Primaris units, as these were intended to be replacements for firstborn units.
We’ve long heard rumors that the 7th to 8th Edition change was supposed to be more dramatic than it was. Rumors persist (the game that never was) that we were going to get something close to an Age of Sigmar style change, with classic Marines being killed off, and Ynnari combining all the Eldar into one faction with the variants done away with, and other such changes. There were a lot of hints pointing to the death of Slaanesh, and other big changes.
Those things didn’t happen, but not it seems, from the rumors and backstage talk, because it was never an option, but because at some point the changes were walked back. It’s possible this was due to Age of Sigmar’s rocky start and people getting cold feet. It’s possible they just decided it wasn’t the way they wanted to go, but at some point, it seems a major adjustment was made. And this fundamentally left the early 8th Edition fluff in the lurch. Given the lead time on publications I’d guess those things, the core rule book fluff, Dark Imperium, etc., were already finished before the change was made and at best could only get minor edits to reflect some of the redirect. I think it’s that change of direction that lead to a lot of the scattered nature of the 8th Edition fluff with stuff not always lining up and factions like the Ynnari being huge in Gathering Storm and then just vanishing for years. It feels like these retcons are now the final corrections from a fundamental change that GW made years ago. Of course, we are unlikely to ever know the truth, but it’s certain that these changes are going to have a big effect on the setting moving forward.
If the author is correct (and his conclusions are EXACTLY what I thought of when I first read about the retconning in the book) then that explains why so many Primaris kits. Remember, Space Marines are the face of 40K, the heroes, and there is absolutely no chance that GW would have rebooted them without having a full product line ready to go.
I disagree, but that's a difference of opinions about the effectiveness of the ruleset. I've had plenty of very fun games with the system, and it looks like they are putting some effort into fixing Ld (DG losing fearless in exchange for the same ATSKNF effect Loyalists Marines have). I'm not arguing it's perfect, just that it can be fun.
The game is fun enough true, but were did you get the idea DG were fearless? Only poxwalkers ignore morale currently, so really what this new rule does is trivialize morale for YET another army.
Apparently it's been a while since I've paid proper attention to Plague Marines because those used to be fearless, so they're actually getting a buff then.
And we don't know what's happening to Poxwalkers, if anything.
Even a poll of DakkaDakka demonstrated that plastic updates wouldn't necessarily get veteran players to update their armies. I don't think it is too much of a leap to think that GW also believes that refreshes might not bring in that many new players compared to something completely new. There may be something about the gravity of 40k that GW believes that they can rest on their laurels with factions that are already functional. They seem to be showing the same thing with many of the older factions in AoS too. With the large exception being their poster faction (and strangely Chaos) they want to quickly prop up as the hip, new thing (well, as much as space marines can be anyways). I also think there is something to the gravity of 40k that prevents it from being anywhere close to as daring as AoS which appears to allow far more creative freedom.
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army. I only mention it because if I remember correctly, nothing could ally with Tyranids in 7th, and they were the only faction that had no allies. With GSC, they now have a couple of allies to give them something more to work with. I am a GSC player. If they all got rolled into the next nids codex, wouldn't hurt my feelings. Just makes it easier to include more than genestealers.
And that has more to do with the fact that Space Marines have become "Every Faction" +1. I like to imagine the GW Space Marine design team leader is basically just that guy from the meme talking about copying something but changing it a bit to make it look different.
Hi, I am Speed Freakz, we like Warbikes, buggies and fast transports. Hello Speed Freakz, we are called White scars/Ravenwing. We like the same things, however we are going to get a fethload more new kits than you. Ohh and our rules are going to be vastly superior to yours.
Hi, I am Necrons, I like being incredibly hard to kill. Hi Necrons, I'm Iron Hands, we are incredibly hard to remove...even more so than you, but we also have access to way better toys.
Hi, I am Eldar, I like small units that are extremely specialized at a skillset and whose members practice literally thousands of years with technology vastly superior to that of the imperium of man. Hi Eldar, I'm literally every SM faction in the game. Our new SM's are better, stronger, more durable and cheaper than your guys...also, we have way better tech than you....like a single infantryman with 12 S4 shots for relatively cheap...and power fists in case things get weird, oh, and our melta is better than yours because reasons.
As far as nidz not getting allies, neither did Orkz.
Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army. I only mention it because if I remember correctly, nothing could ally with Tyranids in 7th, and they were the only faction that had no allies. With GSC, they now have a couple of allies to give them something more to work with. I am a GSC player. If they all got rolled into the next nids codex, wouldn't hurt my feelings. Just makes it easier to include more than genestealers.
And that has more to do with the fact that Space Marines have become "Every Faction" +1. I like to imagine the GW Space Marine design team leader is basically just that guy from the meme talking about copying something but changing it a bit to make it look different.
Hi, I am Speed Freakz, we like Warbikes, buggies and fast transports. Hello Speed Freakz, we are called White scars/Ravenwing. We like the same things, however we are going to get a fethload more new kits than you. Ohh and our rules are going to be vastly superior to yours.
Hi, I am Necrons, I like being incredibly hard to kill. Hi Necrons, I'm Iron Hands, we are incredibly hard to remove...even more so than you, but we also have access to way better toys.
Hi, I am Eldar, I like small units that are extremely specialized at a skillset and whose members practice literally thousands of years with technology vastly superior to that of the imperium of man. Hi Eldar, I'm literally every SM faction in the game. Our new SM's are better, stronger, more durable and cheaper than your guys...also, we have way better tech than you....like a single infantryman with 12 S4 shots for relatively cheap...and power fists in case things get weird, oh, and our melta is better than yours because reasons.
As far as nidz not getting allies, neither did Orkz.
Marines have always been like that in the lore, it's only relatively recently that it's actually mattered on the table.
So do you play 40k? Do you get off on being taken advantage of by a corporation?
I don't play any more no, I stopped in 5th edition. I am interested again (hence being in this thread) but mostly in playing Grimdark Future with my GW stuff. I don't feel GW are taking advantage of me because I only buy the stuff from them I want - their rules are pretty crap so I don't buy those but they make some nice models in start collecting sets so I pick some of those up now and then.
I think only the basic Primaris look good, most of the specialist units look pretty bad to me, and I hate the move to 32mm bases, so I don't buy any of those.
ClockworkZion wrote: Marines have always been like that in the lore, it's only relatively recently that it's actually mattered on the table.
Eldar are also substantially more competent and dangerous compared to the average well-trained human (Guardsman) than the tabletop rules reflect. So Astartes *are* getting a power boost out of whack with the rest of the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently it's been a while since I've paid proper attention to Plague Marines because those used to be fearless, so they're actually getting a buff then.
Considering how this ability is most likely the replacement for Death to the False Emperor, it's not exactly a buff.
DttFE going away isn't a bad thing though. Typhus rolling two sixes and then effectively hulk-smashing a LRBT or predator didn't make too much sense - especially when he suddenly forgets how to do that when the crew defects to chaos or is taken over by genestealers cults. It will be missed, but it mostly caused "feels bad" moments anyways.
i'll be glad when DttFE goes away.
I dislike inherent buffs against certain factions like that because it's impossible to balance.
If you increase the unit's cost to reflect the buff, they're overcosted against anything else. And if you don't they're undercosted against their 'hated enemy'.
Plus it just feels a bit lame for their opponent, as they're being adversely punished by giving buffs away purely as a result of their chosen faction.
Though, I think just maybe knights (a.k.a. Bretonians) could do extremely well
They haven't done well in original Whfb, why would they in AoS when other factions get access to cavalry on gryphons, dragons and other monsters? Idoneth already have eel knights and LRL the dawnriders, and of course chaos knights. Brets had very limited appeal and i doubt that'd change seeing as AoS is hitting more unique not more generic notes when it comes to faction designs.
As for Stormcast-Marine equivalency, GW tried to make SCE the marines of their new game and failed miserably, and they haven't had a new release in 2 years since.
Though, I think just maybe knights (a.k.a. Bretonians) could do extremely well
They haven't done well in original Whfb, why would they in AoS when other factions get access to cavalry on gryphons, dragons and other monsters? Idoneth already have eel knights and LRL the dawnriders, and of course chaos knights. Brets had very limited appeal and i doubt that'd change seeing as AoS is hitting more unique not more generic notes when it comes to faction designs.
As for Stormcast-Marine equivalency, GW tried to make SCE the marines of their new game and failed miserably, and they haven't had a new release in 2 years since.
Bretonia was one of the most misshandled parade exemples of GW's desinvestment cycles and misshandeling.
ClockworkZion wrote: [
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Careful there Zion, or some angry idiot will be accusing you of being divorced from reality.
If they'd dropped "Codex Primaris" on us as it's own faction, be they more Imperials or something else, we'd have gotten about 25-30 kits in fairly short order. (a matter of months at most). Especially if they were meant to be the flagship product.
Wich, not counting all the Lts, is about what we've gotten steadily trickled out to us over the last 3 years.
Though, I think just maybe knights (a.k.a. Bretonians) could do extremely well
They haven't done well in original Whfb, why would they in AoS when other factions get access to cavalry on gryphons, dragons and other monsters? Idoneth already have eel knights and LRL the dawnriders, and of course chaos knights. Brets had very limited appeal and i doubt that'd change seeing as AoS is hitting more unique not more generic notes when it comes to faction designs.
As for Stormcast-Marine equivalency, GW tried to make SCE the marines of their new game and failed miserably, and they haven't had a new release in 2 years since.
Bretonia was one of the most misshandled parade exemples of GW's desinvestment cycles and misshandeling.
They weren't popular from the start, even when they got full set of brand new plastic kits in 6th ed (or early 7th) to replace the 5 units they had in 5th ed because no one but Perries cared about them.
ClockworkZion wrote: [
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Careful there Zion, or some angry idiot will be accusing you of being divorced from reality.
If they'd dropped "Codex Primaris" on us as it's own faction, be they more Imperials or something else, we'd have gotten about 25-30 kits in fairly short order. (a matter of months at most). Especially if they were meant to be the flagship product.
Wich, not counting all the Lts, is about what we've gotten steadily trickled out to us over the last 3 years.
Why is that? Harlequins works perfectly with 8 datasheets and they're an elite oriented army like SM. How many datasheets do custodes have? Codex Primaris could have been fine with 12-15 new releases at the very beginning of the edition, and the rest "slowly" released over the last three years.
Karol wrote: Well, they are very good at the deveiving part. I started in 8th and it took me around 2 and a half year to notice that GW doesn't want fix rules or bring balance. Assuming I am half as inteligent as an avarge person, this means a noob my age will get it in a few months to a year. Which oddly is around how long people around here play w40k. Something I notice, when I was writing this sentence.
Those who stick around long enough get clued into GW's business practices. Once you see it, you can't ignore it.
- New models come with highly improved datasheets, getting players to buy more models.
- New books come with special rules, getting players to buy more books.
- New editions come with altered mechanics, getting players to buy more armies.
Basically, their rubric for players can be summed up as: buy more and buy constantly.
What is not part of GW's business practices: making older, iconic units useful in the current meta. They only become useful again by coincidence and it's why we rarely see Dire Avengers in Eldar armies, Meganobs in Ork armies, Chaos Space Marines in CSM armies, etc.
Don't mistake this for a complaint, I like this as a business model a lot. It creates a fascinating, substantial secondary market and the constant churn can be highly entertaining.
But it also leads to oversaturation. Something to remember: every Imperial list that's useful right now will be useless in a few years.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently it's been a while since I've paid proper attention to Plague Marines because those used to be fearless, so they're actually getting a buff then.
Considering how this ability is most likely the replacement for Death to the False Emperor, it's not exactly a buff.
DttFE going away isn't a bad thing though. Typhus rolling two sixes and then effectively hulk-smashing a LRBT or predator didn't make too much sense - especially when he suddenly forgets how to do that when the crew defects to chaos or is taken over by genestealers cults. It will be missed, but it mostly caused "feels bad" moments anyways.
ClockworkZion wrote: Marines have always been like that in the lore, it's only relatively recently that it's actually mattered on the table.
Eldar are also substantially more competent and dangerous compared to the average well-trained human (Guardsman) than the tabletop rules reflect. So Astartes *are* getting a power boost out of whack with the rest of the game.
In the lore a single Astartes can wreck multiple platoons of Guardsmen on his own. Heck, one short story has a Marine killing multiple Dark Eldar faster than they can even react.
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Careful there Zion, or some angry idiot will be accusing you of being divorced from reality.
If they'd dropped "Codex Primaris" on us as it's own faction, be they more Imperials or something else, we'd have gotten about 25-30 kits in fairly short order. (a matter of months at most). Especially if they were meant to be the flagship product.
Wich, not counting all the Lts, is about what we've gotten steadily trickled out to us over the last 3 years.
I'm not saying they handled it well, there is definitely problems in how fast they were rolled out, but GW did roll out replacements for older plastic kits and I can only imagine that they didn't think they were making enough sales off them even with the new Grav weapons being included, likely because it's easier to sell a new army to someone than convince them to replace all the models with slightly better versions of said models, which lead to the decision to turn Jes Goodwin's idea for a revamped and upscaled Marine into a new product line.
ClockworkZion wrote: [
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Careful there Zion, or some angry idiot will be accusing you of being divorced from reality.
If they'd dropped "Codex Primaris" on us as it's own faction, be they more Imperials or something else, we'd have gotten about 25-30 kits in fairly short order.
...Except that all of GW's biggest historical product line flops, the last of which that I recall was the Drukhari relaunch, have been when they drop a billion kits all at once with no breathing time and people just have to pick what they want.
GW has learned that no matter how excited people are for a thing, they get overwhelmed by dozens of 60$ a pop kits turning up simultaneously. Hell, it was overwhelming when they did it back when kits were 30-40$ a pop, it'd be absolutely insane now.
Not even the sisters relaunch was that big. And they got people invested beforehand with the 250$ box.
Karol wrote: Well, they are very good at the deveiving part. I started in 8th and it took me around 2 and a half year to notice that GW doesn't want fix rules or bring balance. Assuming I am half as inteligent as an avarge person, this means a noob my age will get it in a few months to a year. Which oddly is around how long people around here play w40k. Something I notice, when I was writing this sentence.
Those who stick around long enough get clued into GW's business practices. Once you see it, you can't ignore it.
- New models come with highly improved datasheets, getting players to buy more models.
- New books come with special rules, getting players to buy more books.
- New editions come with altered mechanics, getting players to buy more armies.
Basically, their rubric for players can be summed up as: buy more and buy constantly.
What is not part of GW's business practices: making older, iconic units useful in the current meta. They only become useful again by coincidence and it's why we rarely see Dire Avengers in Eldar armies, Meganobs in Ork armies, Chaos Space Marines in CSM armies, etc.
Don't mistake this for a complaint, I like this as a business model a lot. It creates a fascinating, substantial secondary market and the constant churn can be highly entertaining.
But it also leads to oversaturation. Something to remember: every Imperial list that's useful right now will be useless in a few years.
New models are a crapshoot on if they are good or not. That's a common fallacy that gets tossed around despite countless examples of all the times models came out and weren't good.
New books always try to tweak and refine the armies to keep the game fresh and interesting, which of course helps people buy more stuff, but that's the same for any game system.
I feel you've gone a bit too cynical and only see malice where there isn't any.
ClockworkZion wrote: [
GW tried refreshing the Firstborn and I can only guess they felt the sales didn't really reflect the effort because everyone who already had them wasn't going to buy them, which turned Jes Goodwin's refresh/rescale idea into a new product line.
Careful there Zion, or some angry idiot will be accusing you of being divorced from reality.
If they'd dropped "Codex Primaris" on us as it's own faction, be they more Imperials or something else, we'd have gotten about 25-30 kits in fairly short order.
...Except that all of GW's biggest historical product line flops, the last of which that I recall was the Drukhari relaunch, have been when they drop a billion kits all at once with no breathing time and people just have to pick what they want.
GW has learned that no matter how excited people are for a thing, they get overwhelmed by dozens of 60$ a pop kits turning up simultaneously. Hell, it was overwhelming when they did it back when kits were 30-40$ a pop, it'd be absolutely insane now.
Not even the sisters relaunch was that big. And they got people invested beforehand with the 250$ box.
Yeah, I don't hate the idea of the Primaris, but even I've been like "okay, can we calm down now?" everytime they drop a new release.
Heck Sisters didn't even get long enough to actually see all their kits out before GW was banging on about Marines again.
I'm less sure, power creep is a known thing.
I've also heard from people that claim to have been part of the playtesters for 9th that they reported the new units as OP, and GW effectively replied "good".
Sure, not everything is OP at launch, but I would attribute that variance to incompetence before I would claim that powercreep doesn't exist.
I will, however, say that that doesn't necessarily always stem from an intentional to specifically make something more competitive. But a desire to give them new abilities which are cooler than anything that's come before to encourage sales.
kirotheavenger wrote: I'm less sure, power creep is a known thing.
I've also heard from people that claim to have been part of the playtesters for 9th that they reported the new units as OP, and GW effectively replied "good".
Sure, not everything is OP at launch, but I would attribute that variance to incompetence before I would claim that powercreep doesn't exist.
I will, however, say that that doesn't necessarily always stem from an intentional to specifically make something more competitive. But a desire to give them new abilities which are cooler than anything that's come before to encourage sales.
I've never heard the playtesters talk badly about GW's response to them from their platforms at least. I feel like that's more like scuttlebutt the internet drums up to keep the "GW bad" narrative going.
From what we've seen from the books released for 9th, they've all been pretty well balanced with only one real outlier unit (Eradicators). Most of the abuse the Marine book has are coming from 8th ed supplements, and generally they've done well so far. I'm not saying they're perfect, but we've seen a major improvement this edition and if they keep this trajectory then it'll be one hell of a great edition.
Eradicators are weak-sauce compared to things like the Rites of War WL-Trait, the bike-Chappy, the just-make-all-Necrons ObSec and let them scout (without even needing to stay 9" away) brain-fart, Plasma Inceptors, the entire Dark Angels index, new Vanguard Vet rules, new Lighting Claw rules, Transhuman for 1 fething CP, etc.., etc.., etc..
Ah, the grand GWspiracy, never not entertaining when it comes up!
techsoldaten wrote: - New models come with highly improved datasheets, getting players to buy more models.
....Except when they don't. New models come out with datasheets that are worse than existing options all the time.1 in about 4 new datasheets comes out that is actually competitive. Don't believe me? What's the new Primaris wave?
-Judicar
-Eradicators
-Bladeguard
^very competitive
-Assault Intercessors
-Outriders
-ATV
-Captain with storm shield and relic blade
-Bladeguard ancient
-Heavy Intercessors
-Stationary missile fortification
^decent, but generally worse than existing options by most accounts. Most competitive players ain't seeing a reason to take chainsword intercessors over assault bolter intercessors, or outriders over marine bikers, or atvs over multimelta attack bikes/eradicators
-3 different kinds of primaris-speeder
-3 different kints of gladiator
-volkite gun lieutenant guy
-primaris techmarine
-stationary gun turret
^generally pretty bad
techsoldaten wrote: New books come with special rules, getting players to buy more books.
This is the actual business strategy. GW's business models with respect to the rules right now is the same strategy being employed by every "freemium" video game model: Manufactured Discontent in marketing language. If you subtly make sure a customer is having a worse time just before you give them a product to buy that alleviates that bad time, the customer will be much more enthusiastic about purchasing that product. Have you noticed that "codexes that nerf the faction that is currently powerful, or do not significantly rework and change a faction" are not really a thing since the early-8th codexes? Gw's strategy tends to be to buff something ELSE to be the spider that swallows the fly, and that's intentional. Buffs make the people who get them happy.
There's a reason it would have been horrible for Space Wolves players to play even 1 month of their special unique units being W1 and normal marines being W2, but Chaos Space Marines players GW is A-OK with making play hilariously blatantly imbalanced matchups.
techsoldaten wrote: - New editions come with altered mechanics, getting players to buy more armies.
Yep, or different types of units more favored by the edition's strategy. We've been through the "for every box of infantry you buy, you must buy a transport to go with them" edition, the "we want you to buy multiples of the same kit together to get a formation bonus" edition, the "no actually wait, no transports, hordes of infantry on the battlefield please" edition, and now the, I guess "throw out your non-marines, buy primaris pleasepleasepleaseweinvestedsomuchintothem" edition.
What is not part of GW's business practices: making older, iconic units useful in the current meta. They only become useful again by coincidence and it's why we rarely see
1 for 1 so far, though oddly, a strange example to pick given that Dire Avengers are THE NEWEST eldar troop choice :^) is GW trying to get people to buy Storm Guardians or something?
The whinge as far as I can see is that for the last 3 of 4 years there has been a major Marine release.
In part I can agree - they wanted Primaris to fully replace Marines (and may have then got cold feet, who knows), so wanted everything out reasonably quickly. I'm also not overly convinced they'd have gone *much faster* than this - because as said, pockets are only so big, GW want people to buy a little often.
But the point is they are new - a big collection of models for people to sink their teeth into. Which unsurprisingly has occurred, and its now wall to wall marines even more than usual.
The problem is *this is exactly why* Xenos - and to a degree Chaos factions - feel ignored. I don't think Dark Eldar need an entire new line of models. Kabalites, Wyches etc hold up very well. But it would be nice to have something *new* - and I mean properly new, not "this was finecast, now it isn't". Because yes, I've got some finecast incubi, so unless you make them so overpowered I should be running 20-30 in every list I can imagine, I don't need more. But at the same time, its hard to see who is going to start a DE army on the back of Incubi and one special character, so who is this release for?
I think DE are going to get Hesperax early in 2021 and then that will be it for another edition. And their codex/supplement/future chapter approved rules might be good, might be bad through those years - but from a collection perspective, its kind of tedious.
In the same way if you think Tyranids are a "complete" army, and there's no room for new units, I just feel that's a lack of imagination. Yes you might be treading on another unit's toes - but again, if the models *look cool* - and are not complete trash rules wise - I don't think that's a problem.
It becomes a problem for stores to stock and so on. The Xenos range that most badly needs to be looked at is definitely Eldar, and after that next in line is probably Imperial Guard. Everyone else has pretty nice models and lots of plastic kits.
Every range cannot be like Primaris, it would overwhelm the retailers. That is what happened to Warmachine and Hordes.
I think this is an issue mostly for veteran players who are also "faction loyalists", only playing one or two factions. Then you feel that things get stale and want a shake up. But I think that might be a smaller group by far than people who collect multiple factions, new players, and people who play space marines as their main faction.
Judging everything just on "is it or plastic or not" is a bad idea though.
Unless those 22 year old Berzerker models are fine. I mean they are plastic, right? Or how's about the 21 year old Eldar Guardians which are brought up as the main sticking point for people not wanting to play Craftworlds, more than Finecast Aspect Warriors? Tyranid Gaunts are a laughably bad kit now too and the Cadians looked out of date the moment they came out in 2003.
Range refreshes are not just about pleasing the already existing collectors of the army, but ensuring there can continue to be new blood that will invest in it too. Necrons would not be seeing nearly the same amount of popularity right now if they were still on those terrible old sculpts for Warriors, despite the previous Warrior kits being newer than like all of the other kits I just mentioned aside from Cadians.
Making sure the core troops of the army are up to date is the most important thing for the health of a model range because it's what people are going to be buying and painting the most of. If they're having to wrestle with shoddy old sculpts which are starting to get worn out and are visibly lower quality than newer stuff of course they're not going to buy into the army on a large scale. And if half of those models are finecast too? No chance.
Bosskelot wrote: Judging everything just on "is it or plastic or not" is a bad idea though.
Unless those 22 year old Berzerker models are fine. I mean they are plastic, right? Or how's about the 21 year old Eldar Guardians which are brought up as the main sticking point for people not wanting to play Craftworlds, more than Finecast Aspect Warriors? Tyranid Gaunts are a laughably bad kit now too and the Cadians looked out of date the moment they came out in 2003.
Range refreshes are not just about pleasing the already existing collectors of the army, but ensuring there can continue to be new blood that will invest in it too. Necrons would not be seeing nearly the same amount of popularity right now if they were still on those terrible old sculpts for Warriors, despite the previous Warrior kits being newer than like all of the other kits I just mentioned aside from Cadians.
Making sure the core troops of the army are up to date is the most important thing for the health of a model range because it's what people are going to be buying and painting the most of. If they're having to wrestle with shoddy old sculpts which are starting to get worn out and are visibly lower quality than newer stuff of course they're not going to buy into the army on a large scale. And if half of those models are finecast too? No chance.
I still get PTSD about snapped hormagaunt feet and split-crack eldar asses, even over a decade since I last built some.
I will say that new = expensive in comparison, guardians and gaunts if resculpted will cost more per head than they do now and the 2nd hand market will shrink for current-versions obviously. Same for ork boyz and guardsmen, I see people clamouring for new guard or ork infantry and I already consider them too expensive to get into.
I will say that new = expensive in comparison, guardians and gaunts if resculpted will cost more per head than they do now and the 2nd hand market will shrink for current-versions obviously. Same for ork boyz and guardsmen, I see people clamouring for new guard or ork infantry and I already consider them too expensive to get into.
This is definitely true, I wonder if people realise that costs of these kits would probably increase about 50% per head if they got a new release.
I'm seriously considering starting Imperial Guard - but even current costs have all but stopped me after I planned out even a small 1000pt list. As much as newer and sexier models would be great, the new costs would completely torpedo my plans.
ClockworkZion wrote: New models are a crapshoot on if they are good or not. That's a common fallacy that gets tossed around despite countless examples of all the times models came out and weren't good.
New books always try to tweak and refine the armies to keep the game fresh and interesting, which of course helps people buy more stuff, but that's the same for any game system.
I feel you've gone a bit too cynical and only see malice where there isn't any.
You talk about malice, I talk about business models.
GW's business model demands they keep people continuously buying models, books and supplies. I'm pretty sure that's self-evident, but you're welcome to argue.
That's a nice story about keeping the game interesting, but it's not necessary for people's enjoyment of the game nor is it true of all gaming systems. Chess and Go have been around for centuries unchanged and people still enjoy playing both very much. The sentiment I hear expressed by 40k players the most is a desire for a game that's well balanced with each faction's units costed properly relative to one another. A bonus would be if a list could survive a new edition unchanged.
There's a reason that never happens.
Try not to think about this as good or bad, but simply the business model under which the company operates. By changing the relative value of factions / units every six months, people are constantly adjusting for the meta (which often involves purchasing new models.) There's always a different gauge for what's efficient coming, meaning there's always a consumer demand for product.
You don't have to be cynical to realize that's what's happening. It's not necessarily bad, I find it entertaining and the constant churn is the reason I've stayed around so long. The rules for Wraithlords had me laughing for a long time.
We're at a point where the rules for Primaris Marine armies are so good GW was able to increase demand for those models. It started about 1.5 years ago and continues to this day. This is the oversaturation, I was seeing it myself before Covid hit. Primaris had already been around for years but people were not starting armies at the same rate because, despite the quality of the models, the rules weren't there to make them as good as what they are.
GW knows they can shift demand to another faction with the release of the next Codex by introducing some new rules and setting points at a certain level. They're just refining the business model now to extract as much capital from consumers as possible on their ascent to being a "big" company.
I will say that new = expensive in comparison, guardians and gaunts if resculpted will cost more per head than they do now and the 2nd hand market will shrink for current-versions obviously. Same for ork boyz and guardsmen, I see people clamouring for new guard or ork infantry and I already consider them too expensive to get into.
This is definitely true, I wonder if people realise that costs of these kits would probably increase about 50% per head if they got a new release.
I'm seriously considering starting Imperial Guard - but even current costs have all but stopped me after I planned out even a small 1000pt list. As much as newer and sexier models would be great, the new costs would completely torpedo my plans.
This is also why I think that representing hordes by recycling units back onto the board is a good idea, because 'horde' armies otherwise cost so much more than the PA armies. If they had the same number of units, but one side could recycle units, you'd get that horde feeling pretty well.
I agree with the point made earlier that respawning units doesn't really feel like a horde as much as just having lots of models.
It also sells fewer models, which is exactly the opposite of what GW is trying to push.
They went kinda crazy at the end of 7th, giving you units completely free, spawning other units during the game, or even units turning into other units mid-game. So to properly play a 2000pt game you might need to bring 2500pts+ to the table.
Fortunately they abandoned that because it was extremely toxic to play against.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army.
This really just reflects how the Marine codex is already so extensive and so bloated that they have a unit for every role and every niche except cheap horde infantry. And this was the case even before the Primaris launch. Guard change significantly when you add Penitent Engines to the mix.
This argument is, fundamentally, that because the Tyranid range has so many gaps compared to Space Marines, then any additions that can ally with Tyranids should count as support for the Tyranid range. I don't buy it- it's barely a step removed from telling Guard players they should be happy because now Sisters are back.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I don't think any 40k faction would be equal or exceed space marines even if they were given more promotion and resources as marines. Any faction would certainly be doing better much than they are. Necrons and Sisters of Battle being a pretty strong case for that recently. But they don't have the Je ne sais quoi that space marines do. That's not me as a fan of space marines, that's me being honest with myself. I would rather space marines and Primaris especially be niche so I can be THEE Primaris player at my FLGS.
(...)
But what I want isn't what I think would work best. Same goes for space marines. They are always going to be a popular idea. There's a reason why large amount of non-GW media feature them. The idea of a space marine was well imprinted in my mind well before I ever heard of 40k. If anything, 40k space marines are less space marine than anything else I would call a space marine. They are space knights really. Which is close enough.
I disagree with the hypothesis that dudebro space knights are such a popular and enduring concept that they would automatically be the most popular faction regardless of support, and as you noted (bolded for emphasis) what 40K calls a 'space marine' doesn't really line up with the pop culture concept of a 'space marine'.
I think you can make a case for something like Tempestus Scions tapping into the popularity of Call of Duty, or a more sci-fi Guard regiment like Elysians that actually does match the cultural roots of Aliens' Marines (see also: Halo's UNSC, Starship Troopers' Mobile Infantry). Maybe if Scions were more than two kits, or Guard had models newer than 2003, they might actually be more popular.
GW's marketing and writing constantly fluffs up Marines as the coolest thing to ever exist (even when reading about unrelated factions), puts them on all the branding, and includes them in all the starter sets- I think that has a lot more to do with their popularity than any inherent appeal to space knights. Just look at how Custodes are nowhere near as popular as Marines despite basically being the same concept taken to the next level.
ClockworkZion wrote: New models are a crapshoot on if they are good or not. That's a common fallacy that gets tossed around despite countless examples of all the times models came out and weren't good.
New books always try to tweak and refine the armies to keep the game fresh and interesting, which of course helps people buy more stuff, but that's the same for any game system.
I feel you've gone a bit too cynical and only see malice where there isn't any.
You talk about malice, I talk about business models.
GW's business model demands they keep people continuously buying models, books and supplies. I'm pretty sure that's self-evident, but you're welcome to argue.
That's a nice story about keeping the game interesting, but it's not necessary for people's enjoyment of the game nor is it true of all gaming systems. Chess and Go have been around for centuries unchanged and people still enjoy playing both very much. The sentiment I hear expressed by 40k players the most is a desire for a game that's well balanced with each faction's units costed properly relative to one another. A bonus would be if a list could survive a new edition unchanged.
There's a reason that never happens.
Try not to think about this as good or bad, but simply the business model under which the company operates. By changing the relative value of factions / units every six months, people are constantly adjusting for the meta (which often involves purchasing new models.) There's always a different gauge for what's efficient coming, meaning there's always a consumer demand for product.
You don't have to be cynical to realize that's what's happening. It's not necessarily bad, I find it entertaining and the constant churn is the reason I've stayed around so long. The rules for Wraithlords had me laughing for a long time.
We're at a point where the rules for Primaris Marine armies are so good GW was able to increase demand for those models. It started about 1.5 years ago and continues to this day. This is the oversaturation, I was seeing it myself before Covid hit. Primaris had already been around for years but people were not starting armies at the same rate because, despite the quality of the models, the rules weren't there to make them as good as what they are.
GW knows they can shift demand to another faction with the release of the next Codex by introducing some new rules and setting points at a certain level. They're just refining the business model now to extract as much capital from consumers as possible on their ascent to being a "big" company.
The reason I saw that post as ascribing malice was the long debunked "all new stuff is better than old stuff" claim, paired with saying that they want you to buy stuff is proof of them being mustache twirling.
And you don't have to constantly adjust for metas outside of competetive, but then you're already buying into the highest amount of churn to compete in a meta arms race.
kirotheavenger wrote: I agree with the point made earlier that respawning units doesn't really feel like a horde as much as just having lots of models.
It also sells fewer models, which is exactly the opposite of what GW is trying to push.
They went kinda crazy at the end of 7th, giving you units completely free, spawning other units during the game, or even units turning into other units mid-game. So to properly play a 2000pt game you might need to bring 2500pts+ to the table.
Fortunately they abandoned that because it was extremely toxic to play against.
But I doubt respawning hordes will be a thing.
I didn't find it toxic. Not like Riptide spam. But I bet they sold off a lot of outstanding Rhinos, Razorbacks, and other assorted inventory gumming up their warehouse (and not gelling with their new production schedule). I know I finished building my Battle Company for that reason, because GW seemed to be rewarding me loyally building a Battle Company. I'd bet that one of the reasons we see so many more SM than Orks, Tyranids, or AM is because they're much cheaper to collect and field in a game. If a unit of Termagants is 120pts for thirty and a unit of SM is 120pts for five, the Tyranid player needs to buy 3x as many boxes. Where a Tyranid player only has to buy one box for a Troops unit, like a SM player, I think you'd see lots more Tyranid armies.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army.
This really just reflects how the Marine codex is already so extensive and so bloated that they have a unit for every role and every niche except cheap horde infantry. And this was the case even before the Primaris launch. Guard change significantly when you add Penitent Engines to the mix.
This argument is, fundamentally, that because the Tyranid range has so many gaps compared to Space Marines, then any additions that can ally with Tyranids should count as support for the Tyranid range. I don't buy it- it's barely a step removed from telling Guard players they should be happy because now Sisters are back.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I don't think any 40k faction would be equal or exceed space marines even if they were given more promotion and resources as marines. Any faction would certainly be doing better much than they are. Necrons and Sisters of Battle being a pretty strong case for that recently. But they don't have the Je ne sais quoi that space marines do. That's not me as a fan of space marines, that's me being honest with myself. I would rather space marines and Primaris especially be niche so I can be THEE Primaris player at my FLGS.
(...)
But what I want isn't what I think would work best. Same goes for space marines. They are always going to be a popular idea. There's a reason why large amount of non-GW media feature them. The idea of a space marine was well imprinted in my mind well before I ever heard of 40k. If anything, 40k space marines are less space marine than anything else I would call a space marine. They are space knights really. Which is close enough.
I disagree with the hypothesis that dudebro space knights are such a popular and enduring concept that they would automatically be the most popular faction regardless of support, and as you noted (bolded for emphasis) what 40K calls a 'space marine' doesn't really line up with the pop culture concept of a 'space marine'.
I think you can make a case for something like Tempestus Scions tapping into the popularity of Call of Duty, or a more sci-fi Guard regiment like Elysians that actually does match the cultural roots of Aliens' Marines (see also: Halo's UNSC, Starship Troopers' Mobile Infantry). Maybe if Scions were more than two kits, or Guard had models newer than 2003, they might actually be more popular.
GW's marketing and writing constantly fluffs up Marines as the coolest thing to ever exist (even when reading about unrelated factions), puts them on all the branding, and includes them in all the starter sets- I think that has a lot more to do with their popularity than any inherent appeal to space knights. Just look at how Custodes are nowhere near as popular as Marines despite basically being the same concept taken to the next level.
Scions have literally one kit, a flyer, and the ugliest vehicle design conceived by the mind of man, and are both uncompetitive and boring as feth to play as and against, and so many of the Counterstrike Call of Duty Dudebros I know who are into 40k are building massive armies of them, or want to.
it's obviously an appeal that exists that is filled somewhat by space marines, but GW could 100% replicate that appeal without the trappings of space-marineyness. Heck, they DID with the phobos line and its cringetastic CoD skull masks and seven-foot-long sneakyboi combat knives.
GW just needs to make atheist marines who wield katanas and wear trenchcoats and they'll have perfectly cornered the market. You'd think this is a joke but the sheer number of 'homebrew chapters that secretly don't believe in the emperor' stories I heard before GW made the horus heresy and allowed for marines who didn't believe in him religiously and just perfectly remembered the history from 10,000 years ago...
This idea that they want to shift space marines for half a year, then move into CWE, then back into Space Marines, then lets have 6 weeks where GSC are top dogs, oh no Abberants are selling too quickly, lets nerf into the ground doesn't make sense from any sort of business angle.
They want a game that people enjoy playing - which I think means a game which feels vaguely balanced. The more people playing means the more people talking about the game and buying models. (I think this was challenged under Kirby - but it was a bit like the idea people buy cars just to look nice outside the house. Some people sure, most people though won't buy if the car is awful to drive.)
The problem with balance however is that they want - and in fact, need - to add new stuff. And any game where you add new stuff tends to undermine balance, because predicting how meta's evolve is incredibly difficult. The whinge is that GW often get internal and external balance way out of whack, which, a mathhammerer declares, they should be able to avoid with some relatively simple excel spreadsheets.
They don't though, they care even less about this than they do which grey plastic they sell. All they care about is how much money they make, which is pretty closely correlated to how much plastic they sell.
The more people play one faction, the better for them. Because they can produce one Space Marine kit and sell to 50% of the playerbase, or one Eldar kit and sell to 10% of the playerbase, that's not even a hard equation for which presents a better return on investment for GW.
That's what creates this cycle, Space Marines are the most popular > GW gives them the most attention > Space Marines draw more players and get even more attention > GW gives them more attention > Repeat
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Adding Ridgerunners and a Jackal Alpha are going to change how Tyranid army plays far more than adding some Penitent Engines to a space marine army.
This really just reflects how the Marine codex is already so extensive and so bloated that they have a unit for every role and every niche except cheap horde infantry. And this was the case even before the Primaris launch. Guard change significantly when you add Penitent Engines to the mix.
This argument is, fundamentally, that because the Tyranid range has so many gaps compared to Space Marines, then any additions that can ally with Tyranids should count as support for the Tyranid range. I don't buy it- it's barely a step removed from telling Guard players they should be happy because now Sisters are back.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I don't think any 40k faction would be equal or exceed space marines even if they were given more promotion and resources as marines. Any faction would certainly be doing better much than they are. Necrons and Sisters of Battle being a pretty strong case for that recently. But they don't have the Je ne sais quoi that space marines do. That's not me as a fan of space marines, that's me being honest with myself. I would rather space marines and Primaris especially be niche so I can be THEE Primaris player at my FLGS.
(...)
But what I want isn't what I think would work best. Same goes for space marines. They are always going to be a popular idea. There's a reason why large amount of non-GW media feature them. The idea of a space marine was well imprinted in my mind well before I ever heard of 40k. If anything, 40k space marines are less space marine than anything else I would call a space marine. They are space knights really. Which is close enough.
I disagree with the hypothesis that dudebro space knights are such a popular and enduring concept that they would automatically be the most popular faction regardless of support, and as you noted (bolded for emphasis) what 40K calls a 'space marine' doesn't really line up with the pop culture concept of a 'space marine'.
I think you can make a case for something like Tempestus Scions tapping into the popularity of Call of Duty, or a more sci-fi Guard regiment like Elysians that actually does match the cultural roots of Aliens' Marines (see also: Halo's UNSC, Starship Troopers' Mobile Infantry). Maybe if Scions were more than two kits, or Guard had models newer than 2003, they might actually be more popular.
GW's marketing and writing constantly fluffs up Marines as the coolest thing to ever exist (even when reading about unrelated factions), puts them on all the branding, and includes them in all the starter sets- I think that has a lot more to do with their popularity than any inherent appeal to space knights. Just look at how Custodes are nowhere near as popular as Marines despite basically being the same concept taken to the next level.
Scions have literally one kit, a flyer, and the ugliest vehicle design conceived by the mind of man, and are both uncompetitive and boring as feth to play as and against, and so many of the Counterstrike Call of Duty Dudebros I know who are into 40k are building massive armies of them, or want to.
it's obviously an appeal that exists that is filled somewhat by space marines, but GW could 100% replicate that appeal without the trappings of space-marineyness. Heck, they DID with the phobos line and its cringetastic CoD skull masks and seven-foot-long sneakyboi combat knives.
GW just needs to make atheist marines who wield katanas and wear trenchcoats and they'll have perfectly cornered the market. You'd think this is a joke but the sheer number of 'homebrew chapters that secretly don't believe in the emperor' stories I heard before GW made the horus heresy and allowed for marines who didn't believe in him religiously and just perfectly remembered the history from 10,000 years ago...
I agree regarding the garbage homebrew Chapter stories I always see. Always unknown founding, always believe in saving humanity but say feth the Imperium, somehow having more plot armor than Space Wolves against the Inquisition, always not following the Codex...it's kinda pathetic. Sorry your garbage homebrew Chapter doesn't get as much done as the Ultramarines, stay mad.
In 2019 I had a lot of hope when the SM codex came out, and the supplements. It could have been a great template for re-doing all the codexes the same way. All factions could have gotten a huge main codex, along with some supplements for different sub-factions. I was pretty excited.
Unfortunately, after the Space Marines got this great codex and supplements that had some absolutely amazing rules, what did the rest of us get? We got PA.
What a joke of a series of books in comparison to what the Space Marines got. Not only that, but the Space Marines also got good stuff in the PA books too.
Apparently, the money I spend on Tyranids is not as valuable as the money you spend on Space Marines. Maybe GW doesn't understand the message they are sending to the customers who don't want to play Imperium armies. I somehow doubt that, though. I think they are just lazy as a company and have gotten away with these tactics for so long, they don't need to do it any other way.
It's sad how badly GW treats their non-Imperium customers. Maybe at some point, if enough of us stop supporting and playing the game, people will realize the problems, but I'm not holding my breath.
Ignoring diversity in your game system certainly won't breed it on the table.
Well it seems, that GW is thinking that if you are hardcore enough to buy tyranid or eldar models that are almost twice my age, then you would have bought them anyway. What ever the models were new or old. And if they can sell you old models with fewer work and investment, they do just that. So your money is worth less.
With marines they can't do that, because they are both their flagship product, so GW wants them to sell, but at the same time because they sell a secondary market is created that clogs new GW sells, so if they were not constantly updating the marine model line, which is easiest to do by changing rules, soon the marine sells would start droping, because players would focus their buying on 50% off second hand armies/models.
Karol wrote: Well it seems, that GW is thinking that if you are hardcore enough to buy tyranid or eldar models that are almost twice my age, then you would have bought them anyway. What ever the models were new or old. And if they can sell you old models with fewer work and investment, they do just that. So your money is worth less.
With marines they can't do that, because they are both their flagship product, so GW wants them to sell, but at the same time because they sell a secondary market is created that clogs new GW sells, so if they were not constantly updating the marine model line, which is easiest to do by changing rules, soon the marine sells would start droping, because players would focus their buying on 50% off second hand armies/models.
Then you realise that finecast takes a lot more work than plastic injection moulding and your theory doesnt hold. It takes GW MORE energy to produce these outdated models that people keep asking for.
VladimirHerzog wrote: [
Then you realise that finecast takes a lot more work than plastic injection moulding and your theory doesnt hold. It takes GW MORE energy to produce these outdated models that people keep asking for.
That assumes they keep producing them. Print runs on unpopular stuff often result in a ton of extras sitting in a warehouse. No reason to resculpt it while you've got stock on hand to sell that no one wants.
Comparatively, resin has cheaper setup costs but higher production costs. Plastic had higher set up costs but cheaper production costs.
That's why resin is typically used for low sales volume stuff, like 3rd party bits or characters.
I think the fact that characters are now plastic is a big reason why they're so expensive now, they're typically lower sales volume of people only buy 1 captain Vs three troop squads, so they need to recoup the set up cost over fewer sales.
Then you realise that finecast takes a lot more work than plastic injection moulding and your theory doesnt hold. It takes GW MORE energy to produce these outdated models that people keep asking for.
They produce them in low numbers, so the cost isn't that high as kiro set. At the same time, as it was said before. Plastic eldar boxs cost more then similar marine ones. For aged models. So no I don't agree with you.
Yeah, Karol is actually right here. I suspect that one of the main reasons for the "legally distinct" nature of Primaris Marines is precisely so GW doesn't have to compete with a secondary market.
Ok I just have to say, someone listed heavy intercessors as decent, how can they be anything quite yet they aren't even released yet ?
You can math hammer things all you like but I think the heavy Ints will be very good when they actually get put out and outriders are for all intents seem better than bike units to me, or maybe on par, with bike units able to specialize with weapons while outriders are overall good for infantry clearing and rapid deployment around the board.
However aside from that I'd agree, GW is just so bad with rules they are hit and miss for making new units amazing good so I don't think they do that on purpose, or they try and are really bad at it. Take your pick.
Well until they become heavily available and used by many, pardon my skepticism for wanting a larger test bed for their worth at least in so far as deciding they are average.
People here have tons of extra flamer aggressors and inceptors from the conquest magazines, and it's not that hard to slap a slightly bigger bolter onto them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok I just have to say, someone listed heavy intercessors as decent, how can they be anything quite yet they aren't even released yet ?
You can math hammer things all you like but ~
Well, we've got the stats.
We've got opponents.
We're playing games.
And we've got plenty of spare models & bitz to use as proxies or for kitbashing....
We can tell how the real models will work via real games.
The unit won't magically work any different with official models....
Or maybe everyone just already knows how assorted str.5 xshot Bolt weapons on a marine chassis works....
Tyel wrote: GW don't care which grey plastic they sell.
I think they do. There's some kind of internal politics where they don't want to push anything like Space Marines. It's like fething John Cena.
I'm no AoS expert but it seems the sigmarines are pushed by gw but nowhere near to the same extent as space marines and the other factions get a much better share of the releases than in 40k unless I'm missing something.
Tyel wrote: GW don't care which grey plastic they sell.
I think they do. There's some kind of internal politics where they don't want to push anything like Space Marines. It's like fething John Cena.
I'm no AoS expert but it seems the sigmarines are pushed by gw but nowhere near to the same extent as space marines and the other factions get a much better share of the releases than in 40k unless I'm missing something.
It wasn't the case for the first 2-3 years of Sigmar when they had 3 very large waves, the last one ended up with the last edition.
The basically got standard peeps, scout peeps and specialist peeps. Almost looks familiar...
Tyel wrote: GW don't care which grey plastic they sell.
I think they do. There's some kind of internal politics where they don't want to push anything like Space Marines. It's like fething John Cena.
I'm no AoS expert but it seems the sigmarines are pushed by gw but nowhere near to the same extent as space marines and the other factions get a much better share of the releases than in 40k unless I'm missing something.
It wasn't the case for the first 2-3 years of Sigmar when they had 3 very large waves, the last one ended up with the last edition.
The basically got standard peeps, scout peeps and specialist peeps. Almost looks familiar...
Don't forget the whole concept of AoS changed dramatically from its inception. GW was very clearly trying to copy cat marines with stormcast. Same design ethos, same marketing, same overall structure - all the early stories were Stormcast being super awesome; a massive lionshare of release models. Even other armies released new like the Khadorans didn't get anywhere near the same level of support.
Thing is GW changed over that time. I think the management change and the whole focus of AoS changing resulted in them abandoning that plan and approach. I think wiser minds prevailed and realised that Marines, for all their financial success, are actually bad for the games overall diversity and health in many respects (as several pages of this thread shows). AoS has thus had a very different approach since around 2.0. With lore focusing on all armies; with stormcast even taking a back seat in releases. I'm sure as other factions get pushed up we'll see a far more even presentation with AoS which is much healthier. You lose that element that 40K has had like armies such as Sisters of Battle, Necrons (early on) and Dark Eldar (missed several editions)being left out to dry - which only means GW has to invest even more to bring them back to life. Sisters of Battle is a fantastic example of a model range GW took a huge investment risk with to bring back. It worked and it must sting the company that they have this fantastic selling range of models that basically didn't sell because GW ignored them for so long - for a huge portion of time they could have been making sales.
dotcomee wrote: In 2019 I had a lot of hope when the SM codex came out, and the supplements. It could have been a great template for re-doing all the codexes the same way. All factions could have gotten a huge main codex, along with some supplements for different sub-factions. I was pretty excited.
Unfortunately, after the Space Marines got this great codex and supplements that had some absolutely amazing rules, what did the rest of us get? We got PA.
...you wanted to buy a second Codex within a 3 year edition, only to then have to rebuy the 'dex again within the early stages (12 months, say) of 9th edition?
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok I just have to say, someone listed heavy intercessors as decent, how can they be anything quite yet they aren't even released yet ?
You can math hammer things all you like but I think the heavy Ints will be very good when they actually get put out and outriders are for all intents seem better than bike units to me, or maybe on par, with bike units able to specialize with weapons while outriders are overall good for infantry clearing and rapid deployment around the board.
However aside from that I'd agree, GW is just so bad with rules they are hit and miss for making new units amazing good so I don't think they do that on purpose, or they try and are really bad at it. Take your pick.
Tabletop simulator or count-as. The minis not being out doesnt prevent people from playing them.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Tabletop simulator or count-as. The minis not being out doesnt prevent people from playing them.
But do you get those in competitive tournaments, where the usual meta-shifting occurs?
I mean its interesting to watch how Marine sadness see's some people going "the Codex is fine apart from Eradicators".
Whereas others are going "Eradicators? That was last month's problem. We are now much more worried about mass Vanguard with Lightning Claws and Storm Shields backed by Plasma Inceptors".
I think Heavy Intercessors will be fine but its not obvious they bring much you can't get with other troops anyway. In fact regular Intercessors seem to be on the way out, because being able to chuck some Phobos into the midboard just helps the objective game more.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Tabletop simulator or count-as. The minis not being out doesnt prevent people from playing them.
But do you get those in competitive tournaments, where the usual meta-shifting occurs?
I mean its interesting to watch how Marine sadness see's some people going "the Codex is fine apart from Eradicators".
Whereas others are going "Eradicators? That was last month's problem. We are now much more worried about mass Vanguard with Lightning Claws and Storm Shields backed by Plasma Inceptors".
I think Heavy Intercessors will be fine but its not obvious they bring much you can't get with other troops anyway. In fact regular Intercessors seem to be on the way out, because being able to chuck some Phobos into the midboard just helps the objective game more.
the meta shifting happens where the games are played by competitive players. Tabletop sim has had nonstop games firing off since the beggining of the quarantine and their Discord is super active. And yes, there has been competitive tournaments on TTS.
I think Heavy Intercessors will be fine but its not obvious they bring much you can't get with other troops anyway. In fact regular Intercessors seem to be on the way out, because being able to chuck some Phobos into the midboard just helps the objective game more.
First off, let me say I'm not really a marine player, and I do believe that right now, and at numerous points throughout the history of the game, there is and has been an oversaturation of marines. I do hope marine releases slow down and that we see other factions get attention, and I think we will.
But I picked this quote to illustrate one of the things that happen when you discuss "marines" in general terms. I said I don't really play Marines, but I do play Deathwatch and Greyknights as Chambers Militant for the Inquisition. And when you play Deathwatch, your Intercessors are the root unit in a Fortis Kill Team, while Heavy Intercessors are your base unit for Indomitus teams and Reivers are the root for Spectrus teams.
In a "Marine" army, there may be other units that fulfill these roles, but in a Deathwatch army, no other unit does quite what they do. I'm not sure how many other seemingly redundant units in the core SM list have special significance when used in combination with a particular subfaction, but it seems reasonable. I'm not saying this justifies the marine bloat or the relentless release schedule- I'd like to see many of the other factions catch up to this gold standard for options and sub-faction interactivity.
I think the responsibility for oversaturation comes from GW's addiction to edition refreshes. I firmly believe that a long lasting edition is the only way other factions can have even a chance to close the gap. I like 9th much more than 8th, but I can't deny that if we were still in 8th, we would have been part way through another cycle of PA style campaign books which would have meant a little support for more factions rather than a lot of support for marines and necrons. The second style PA wave could have been better for non-marines as the first PA served them pretty well.
I'm hoping that the glut and grind of Marine releases now paves the way for a glut and grind of Eldar releases beginning with the DE codex, the previewed Lelith and a few extra kits to support the release. Then maybe a DE Kill Team that doubled as a new 40k unit; CWE could also get Plastic Striking Scorpions as a Kill Team; the next month CWE drops and the scorpions are already in play, so maybe you get hawks and a spider/reaper dual build and a few HQ's- maybe some phoenix lords to go with all the juicy new aspect warriors.
Getting something to replace Blackstone and/ or Doubling down on Kill Team as a second vehicle for releasing 40k content will also help other ranges- I'm curious to see how much support KT is going to get this time around. I always thought it was under utilized as a mechanism for releasing new 40k content- BSF actually did more to move the needle than KT (though the Rogue Trader set was great, we never got the Commorragh set, or the Inquisition set, etc).
I hope 9th lasts long enough to be the end of finecast for all factions. I hope it lasts long enough that every faction gets enough time to grow a Crusade from a Combat Patrol to an Apocalypse army.
I think Heavy Intercessors will be fine but its not obvious they bring much you can't get with other troops anyway. In fact regular Intercessors seem to be on the way out, because being able to chuck some Phobos into the midboard just helps the objective game more.
First off, let me say I'm not really a marine player, and I do believe that right now, and at numerous points throughout the history of the game, there is and has been an oversaturation of marines. I do hope marine releases slow down and that we see other factions get attention, and I think we will.
But I picked this quote to illustrate one of the things that happen when you discuss "marines" in general terms. I said I don't really play Marines, but I do play Deathwatch and Greyknights as Chambers Militant for the Inquisition. And when you play Deathwatch, your Intercessors are the root unit in a Fortis Kill Team, while Heavy Intercessors are your base unit for Indomitus teams and Reivers are the root for Spectrus teams.
In a "Marine" army, there may be other units that fulfill these roles, but in a Deathwatch army, no other unit does quite what they do. I'm not sure how many other seemingly redundant units in the core SM list have special significance when used in combination with a particular subfaction, but it seems reasonable. I'm not saying this justifies the marine bloat or the relentless release schedule- I'd like to see many of the other factions catch up to this gold standard for options and sub-faction interactivity.
I think the responsibility for oversaturation comes from GW's addiction to edition refreshes. I firmly believe that a long lasting edition is the only way other factions can have even a chance to close the gap. I like 9th much more than 8th, but I can't deny that if we were still in 8th, we would have been part way through another cycle of PA style campaign books which would have meant a little support for more factions rather than a lot of support for marines and necrons. The second style PA wave could have been better for non-marines as the first PA served them pretty well.
I'm hoping that the glut and grind of Marine releases now paves the way for a glut and grind of Eldar releases beginning with the DE codex, the previewed Lelith and a few extra kits to support the release. Then maybe a DE Kill Team that doubled as a new 40k unit; CWE could also get Plastic Striking Scorpions as a Kill Team; the next month CWE drops and the scorpions are already in play, so maybe you get hawks and a spider/reaper dual build and a few HQ's- maybe some phoenix lords to go with all the juicy new aspect warriors.
Getting something to replace Blackstone and/ or Doubling down on Kill Team as a second vehicle for releasing 40k content will also help other ranges- I'm curious to see how much support KT is going to get this time around. I always thought it was under utilized as a mechanism for releasing new 40k content- BSF actually did more to move the needle than KT (though the Rogue Trader set was great, we never got the Commorragh set, or the Inquisition set, etc).
I hope 9th lasts long enough to be the end of finecast for all factions. I hope it lasts long enough that every faction gets enough time to grow a Crusade from a Combat Patrol to an Apocalypse army.
Nah, here's what's gonna happen:
Dark Eldar codex drops, Lelith Comes out. Only available in the following 300$, nah feth it 400$ box set:
I'll be honest, I don't think John Cena cares about pushing Space Marines, Hecaton.
You're misunderstanding the analogy. John Cena was picked by the management of his company to be the only one who financially succeeded in a major way of his generation.
I mean its interesting to watch how Marine sadness see's some people going "the Codex is fine apart from Eradicators".
Whereas others are going "Eradicators? That was last month's problem. We are now much more worried about mass Vanguard with Lightning Claws and Storm Shields backed by Plasma Inceptors".
Codex Space Marines was broken on multiple levels since the beginning. Eradicators were simply the tip of the iceberg.
Surely the Imperium half would be an Intercessor kit, a bike Primaris Lieutenant, an Impulsor, and some melee Outriders with thunderhammers and storm shields.
Truth be told veteran outriders with the option to take Stormshields and melee weapon options would be kind of a cool. Give them hammers, swords and axs, mount a single plasma gun from the plasma inceptors, and they would be rather fun to use. And being veteran outriders there wouldn't be problems with DW players making them troops and running them in 5 man squads as part of their combat squaded strike teams.
I was attempting to suggest that for the parody to be funnier the Imperium half should be SM rather than Sisters, and include a unit that's strictly better than something that's already available alongside existing units nobody really needs more of and yet another Primaris Lieutenant.
AnomanderRake wrote: I was attempting to suggest that for the parody to be funnier the Imperium half should be SM rather than Sisters, and include a unit that's strictly better than something that's already available alongside existing units nobody really needs more of and yet another Primaris Lieutenant.
No, it can't be marines because then GW couldn't use nobody buying the box as an excuse to never make more eldar figures.
AnomanderRake wrote: I was attempting to suggest that for the parody to be funnier the Imperium half should be SM rather than Sisters, and include a unit that's strictly better than something that's already available alongside existing units nobody really needs more of and yet another Primaris Lieutenant.
No, it can't be marines because then GW couldn't use nobody buying the box as an excuse to never make more eldar figures.
Oh. Shouldn't it be DE vs. Kroot or DE vs. Aspect Warriors to make it as out-dated as possible, then?
I can totally relate to this man. I started with SM and some IG but i really loved Xenos and Chaos. Sadly at some point i just wanted anything but imperium. I like new Necrons look and style and some changes to Primarines like techmarine and some new stuff (not all tho). Now im just waiting for passion to return and im making some of my own minis for fantasy or DnD (especially ones from wood) or i look for retro warhammer stuff like metal SoB, Bloodletters,Chaos Termies,Beastmen, Wolf Guards etc.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok I just have to say, someone listed heavy intercessors as decent, how can they be anything quite yet they aren't even released yet ?
You can math hammer things all you like but ~
Well, we've got the stats.
We've got opponents.
We're playing games.
And we've got plenty of spare models & bitz to use as proxies or for kitbashing....
We can tell how the real models will work via real games.
The unit won't magically work any different with official models....
Or maybe everyone just already knows how assorted str.5 xshot Bolt weapons on a marine chassis works....
Ok let me check with the tournament results...oh wait..wouldn't be any for them yet..so yet again, pardon my skepticism but until they get actual time on the higher end tables vs high end opponents a bunch of hearsay means little to me. Unless if I proxy them and they ruled I can be like " Guys, these new chonky marine boys, they are the truth. " Seriously, lets stop being so silly. A handful of " expert " experience doesn't truth make and I have played this game long enough to be as grizzled as the next vet. They need actual time, on actual tables in a larger way than just " Some people played some games and were like..meh. ".
This re-run of codexes has officially lost me. Rules should be digital and publishing should be reserved for lore and fiction. I would happily buy into a series of books exploring the lore and Universe that weren't made to feel redundant in a couple of years' time. The rules should be free and digital, it's 2020 for goodness sake. Rule printing has been a pure cash grab for a while now. I'm not buying into it anymore.
Hollow wrote: This re-run of codexes has officially lost me. Rules should be digital and publishing should be reserved for lore and fiction.
Privateer Press tried this. Their book sales crashed out.
Many game companies (Paizo and WotC among them) scrubbed their fiction lines. Paizo has been theoretically trying for another publishing deal for years, and hasn't gotten anywhere with it. They've instead started drip feeding chapters as part of their advertising model (sign up for a newsletter, get a chapter a week via email).
As business decisions go, 'publishing reserved for lore and fiction,' isn't working out all that well in the games industry.
Honestly just look at how few gamers read BL books. GW makes a huge number and yet fewer people ever read them. Heck I've been gaming for years and didn't read any until a few years ago.
Like it or not when you make lore optional many people who are new easily miss out on it because they simply keep prioritising new models ahead of lore. And with the game company making more models all the time (as they should) it keeps pushing lore to the back.
For a 10-20 or more year gamer who has read the Codex level lore for years they "know" the general lore and don't need it as a lure any more; they are already hooked.
The lore in the codex isn't just for them, its for all the new people who join up.
The codex is a great tool - its lore, art, paintwork, rules, gaming all in one book. It hits multiple fronts and works as a mechanic. If GW started making rules only versions of things they would be cheaper and they'd sell, but you'd fast find the optional lore elements falling to one side.
Heck when GW makes new rule books they never (or rarely) release printed "rules only" versions early; they focus on the big rule book which is impractical for the game, but which is chock full of the lore and hobby aspects.
And as noted PP tried this pure rules; pure online; fast changing and updating and digital method with a game that was very competitive based - and its not worked well at all. Suffice to say trying to treat a physical wargame like a digital game just doesn't work .Perhaps in 30 years when we've all got google eye-ball 1000s implanted in our eyes it might work; but right now its a nice add on but will never be the main form
Voss wrote:Privateer Press tried this. Their book sales crashed out.
Overread wrote:And as noted PP tried this pure rules; pure online; fast changing and updating and digital method with a game that was very competitive based - and its not worked well at all. Suffice to say trying to treat a physical wargame like a digital game just doesn't work .
Any particular reason you guys are citing Privateer Press and not Corvus Belli? Infinity's rules are available in print or for free online and they seem to be doing fine.
Yes, it probably eats into the sales of print media, but better accessibility is a huge deal in this day and age. Expecting new players to fork out $115 for a core book + codex before they even know if they'll like a game is a pretty big ask, especially when your competitors do allow those prospective players to read through their rules.
For experienced players, I can't speak for anyone else, but when a codex contains:
-Recycled art
-Dry Wikipedia article fluff
-Rules that will be outdated in 1-2 years
-Points that will be outdated in six months
I don't see that as worth $50. So I don't buy them. Can't imagine I'm the only one. If they went back to the 3rd Ed design of mostly rules but with enough fluff and art to give you the feel of a faction rather than their entire history, I'd pay $20-30 for it. If they went to free online rules I'd probably put that money right back into minis. But the current codices and campaign books and expansions don't feel like good value for money.
If people are buying the books at a healthy margin why would you give them away for free?
Realistically the lore on 40k books is fairly weak, and buying the Psychic Awakening books *for the story* I feel must have been a disappointment. (X fights Y, X appears to be winning but Z turns up. Then Y appears to be winning but they don't for some reason. Big climactic battle. The goodies win but at much cost, the baddies meanwhile don't actually lose anything especially meaningful. In conclusion nothing actually changes or goes forward, the end.) This is perhaps a bit unfair, some of them aren't awful - but I wouldn't pay £25 for the experience.
There clearly have been and remain authors with BL who can spin a good story - but a book with several hundred pages is a bit different (even if its the most generic of bolter porn) to the 30~ odd pages in a codex dedicated to basically explaining what the faction is and its history.
Voss wrote:Privateer Press tried this. Their book sales crashed out.
Overread wrote:And as noted PP tried this pure rules; pure online; fast changing and updating and digital method with a game that was very competitive based - and its not worked well at all. Suffice to say trying to treat a physical wargame like a digital game just doesn't work .
Any particular reason you guys are citing Privateer Press and not Corvus Belli? Infinity's rules are available in print or for free online and they seem to be doing fine.
Likely because Corvus Beli still trades with physical rules and lore in the same volume, both in their core rules and in expansions to their rules. They are doing the very same thing GW does; only they keep to fewer publications.
Yes they have their online Army builder and such, but they also still have all the print media as well.
Remember your casual fan and your new fan don't "need" the most up to date perfect rules. Having something physical in hand to reference is often far better for them and easier to work with. Heck I find online rules and details great to double check, but a pain to actually sit down, read and digest information from. I can do it (on a PC with a big screen); but its not my favourite compared to print media. Sure print gets out of date, but by and large the updates are tiny - a few points change; a few stats change - most updates to even GW's stuff don't come up to more than a single page of A4 (more for the core) and the bulk is often just clarification of terms/interactions (ergo FAQ) .
As I said I appreciate that experienced people don't get as much value from the lore in things like Codex where many times its often repeated summaries. Thing is the book remains a catch-all for newbies and pros and if GW started selling rules only versions the risk would be newbie and pros would gravitate toward them (Because they'd be shorter and therefore cheaper) which would fast result in reduced influence of lore on newbies. Again remember surprisingly few actually read BL books - heck some don't even really know about them.
Overread wrote: Likely because Corvus Beli still trades with physical rules and lore in the same volume, both in their core rules and in expansions to their rules. They are doing the very same thing GW does; only they keep to fewer publications.
Yes they have their online Army builder and such, but they also still have all the print media as well.
Remember your casual fan and your new fan don't "need" the most up to date perfect rules. Having something physical in hand to reference is often far better for them and easier to work with. Heck I find online rules and details great to double check, but a pain to actually sit down, read and digest information from. I can do it (on a PC with a big screen); but its not my favourite compared to print media. Sure print gets out of date, but by and large the updates are tiny - a few points change; a few stats change - most updates to even GW's stuff don't come up to more than a single page of A4 (more for the core) and the bulk is often just clarification of terms/interactions (ergo FAQ) .
Right. So, what's wrong with that model- offer rules for free online, in addition to printed hardcopy for people who want something more tangible?
Overread wrote: As I said I appreciate that experienced people don't get as much value from the lore in things like Codex where many times its often repeated summaries. Thing is the book remains a catch-all for newbies and pros and if GW started selling rules only versions the risk would be newbie and pros would gravitate toward them (Because they'd be shorter and therefore cheaper) which would fast result in reduced influence of lore on newbies. Again remember surprisingly few actually read BL books - heck some don't even really know about them.
I don't follow the logic that the books have to be expensive because they have to include lore, even if new and experienced players alike might prefer a cheaper version without that lore.
Lots of people play the game without caring much about the lore- I don't see that as a problem. I mean, it's not like Bolt Action comes bundled with a copy of one of Anthony Beevor's textbooks (for the low-low price of $79.95) to ensure that you develop a proper appreciation for the history of WW2 while playing the game. And at least that's something that actually happened, rather than fiction largely created to sell models. Why is 'influence of lore on newbies' something we should be concerned with?
If the lore itself isn't interesting enough or presented well enough for players to seek it on their own- and with BL books hitting bestseller's lists, I question whether that's really an issue- then that sounds like more of a value problem with the lore writing itself. I don't think forcing players to buy it as part of the cost of admission is a reasonable approach.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok I just have to say, someone listed heavy intercessors as decent, how can they be anything quite yet they aren't even released yet ?
You can math hammer things all you like but ~
Well, we've got the stats.
We've got opponents.
We're playing games.
And we've got plenty of spare models & bitz to use as proxies or for kitbashing....
We can tell how the real models will work via real games.
The unit won't magically work any different with official models....
Or maybe everyone just already knows how assorted str.5 xshot Bolt weapons on a marine chassis works....
Ok let me check with the tournament results...oh wait..wouldn't be any for them yet..so yet again, pardon my skepticism but until they get actual time on the higher end tables vs high end opponents a bunch of hearsay means little to me. Unless if I proxy them and they ruled I can be like " Guys, these new chonky marine boys, they are the truth. " Seriously, lets stop being so silly. A handful of " expert " experience doesn't truth make and I have played this game long enough to be as grizzled as the next vet. They need actual time, on actual tables in a larger way than just " Some people played some games and were like..meh. ".
Ok, I stand corrected. NOT everyone knows how assorted str.5 xshot Bolt weapons on a marine chassis works....
But I have a serious question for you on this.
Since even you, a grizzled vet, can't know how the unit will work until high end opponents, on high end tourney tables, use the official models.... How do you suppose those high end players evaluate wether or not & then how to use them?
I don't follow the logic that the books have to be expensive because they have to include lore, even if new and experienced players alike might prefer a cheaper version without that lore.
Lots of people play the game without caring much about the lore- I don't see that as a problem. I mean, it's not like Bolt Action comes bundled with a copy of one of Anthony Beevor's textbooks (for the low-low price of $79.95) to ensure that you develop a proper appreciation for the history of WW2 while playing the game. And at least that's something that actually happened, rather than fiction largely created to sell models. Why is 'influence of lore on newbies' something we should be concerned with?
If the lore itself isn't interesting enough or presented well enough for players to seek it on their own- and with BL books hitting bestseller's lists, I question whether that's really an issue- then that sounds like more of a value problem with the lore writing itself. I don't think forcing players to buy it as part of the cost of admission is a reasonable approach.
Consider that we typically have only 1 really active thread on BL books upcoming and even within that thread it rarely gets highly active and it easily falls behind other threads. We do get some lore chatter, but we don't get extensive threads talking about the latest books. At least nothing in comparison to models and rules and such sides of things. Clearly whilst some BL series do make the Best Sellers list that is a different market to the actual model buying community reading them - same as Warhammer TW hits the best sellers but it doesn't mean everyone who wargames has played it.
As for WWII that's a poor example because WWII is taught in most schools; appears in a vast array of computer games, movies, tv series, history documentaries; etc.... It's basically real world stuff that gets referenced all the time. You don't need to present the lore because its right there, the vast majority of people who show interest in things like Bolt Action are likely coming to it specifically because of the "lore" that surrounds the themes of WWII.
Fantasy games instead don't get anything like that so they have to do it themselves.
I also never said that lore and rule books had to be expensive, just that if you take a book (codex) and remove a portion of content and separate it out then one would assume it would cost less (ergo the codex isn't costing more, the rules only version is just costing less).
Again my point is that the integration of rules and lore is a very sensible thing. GW also integrates the painting of models into all that too as a core part of the hobby and business - codex have short paint guides, lots of model photos etc.... That's all designed to encourage painting - heck the 9th ed rules even add 10 points for painting your army. GW knows if they don't push it like that they can easily end up with a DnD style market that is happy to play with grey (which for GW means less impressive free marketing of their game to new customers AND less paint sales)
GW isn't Privateer press. Also, what is this nonsense that nobody read BL? Every special edition is sold out. Collector runs are massively successful. Also.... If you made a definitive lore book for each faction it would be good for years and years.
Voss wrote:Privateer Press tried this. Their book sales crashed out.
Overread wrote:And as noted PP tried this pure rules; pure online; fast changing and updating and digital method with a game that was very competitive based - and its not worked well at all. Suffice to say trying to treat a physical wargame like a digital game just doesn't work .
Any particular reason you guys are citing Privateer Press and not Corvus Belli? Infinity's rules are available in print or for free online and they seem to be doing fine.
Experience? When I played WM/H, players in the stores I played in would snatch up the books. When they switched models away from crunch+fluff, the books stopped selling.
I don't have much experience with Infinity by comparison. I knew one store that sold it, and the one copy of the rulebook they had just sat there. When people came in to play (in that store, still never saw it in others), players didn't have books. And this was a 4-5 years ago back. None of the three stores near me currently carry it at all.
I definitely think that if GW offered rules for free, they'd stop selling as many books.
A lot of people aren't that bothered about the extensive history of their faction. And I personally don't really read the lore anymore - I've read it in the last 3 codexes I've bought.
That's why GW don't separate rules and fluff, that's why they won't offer free rules - they want to force players to buy books, and they want to bump up the premium by adding in lore.
They used to sell the mini rulebooks from the starter set separately, but they stopped doing this entirely because people bought them instead of the massive brick that is the full rulebook.
They don't need to do this, and it'd be better for players if they didn't. But it makes them a lot of money so they'll continue to do so.
kirotheavenger wrote: I definitely think that if GW offered rules for free, they'd stop selling as many books.
A lot of people aren't that bothered about the extensive history of their faction. And I personally don't really read the lore anymore - I've read it in the last 3 codexes I've bought.
That's why GW don't separate rules and fluff, that's why they won't offer free rules - they want to force players to buy books, and they want to bump up the premium by adding in lore.
They used to sell the mini rulebooks from the starter set separately, but they stopped doing this entirely because people bought them instead of the massive brick that is the full rulebook.
They don't need to do this, and it'd be better for players if they didn't. But it makes them a lot of money so they'll continue to do so.
The mini rulebooks were never available in the launch year, I seem to recall the usually were a couple of years into an edition. A lot of people who bought the smaller format already had the full size version and wanted a more portable copy. So it is possible to sell the rules to someone twice, which the community was generally happy about at the time.
kirotheavenger wrote: I definitely think that if GW offered rules for free, they'd stop selling as many books.
A lot of people aren't that bothered about the extensive history of their faction. And I personally don't really read the lore anymore - I've read it in the last 3 codexes I've bought.
That's why GW don't separate rules and fluff, that's why they won't offer free rules - they want to force players to buy books, and they want to bump up the premium by adding in lore.
They used to sell the mini rulebooks from the starter set separately, but they stopped doing this entirely because people bought them instead of the massive brick that is the full rulebook.
They don't need to do this, and it'd be better for players if they didn't. But it makes them a lot of money so they'll continue to do so.
The mini rulebooks were never available in the launch year, I seem to recall the usually were a couple of years into an edition. A lot of people who bought the smaller format already had the full size version and wanted a more portable copy. So it is possible to sell the rules to someone twice, which the community was generally happy about at the time.
Although true, the small rulebooks were available in starter sets from the beginning, and many people (including myself) took to Ebay to buy the books second hand, or just held out for a year until the small books became available, mooching off friends instead (again, including myself).
That's why I think the starter sets now have full rulebooks.
Hollow wrote: GW isn't Privateer press. Also, what is this nonsense that nobody read BL? Every special edition is sold out. Collector runs are massively successful. Also.... If you made a definitive lore book for each faction it would be good for years and years.
I never said "no one". The point isn't that no one reads them, its that not a large portion of people read them.
Consider that GW's limited editions tend to have something like 1000 copies globally (the numbers vary here and there but that seems to be around where they cite the numbers when they do). Yes that's a big number, but spread over a global market that's a very small number.
I agree a definitive lore book would be fantastic, but at the same time if you had the choice of a £40 lore book or a box of models many people getting into the hobby will go for the box of models. Or paints, or brushes or other things. They'd focus on the game side of the game because the game is what they specifically came for.
Heck look at most GW store shelves, they have rack after rack of games, but the BL books might be only a few shelves, perhaps a whole rack at a major store. By and large they hold far far far less store display. If they were selling like crazy to customers they'd command far more shelf space and inventory of stock.
Hollow wrote: GW isn't Privateer press. Also, what is this nonsense that nobody read BL? Every special edition is sold out. Collector runs are massively successful. Also.... If you made a definitive lore book for each faction it would be good for years and years.
I never said "no one". The point isn't that no one reads them, its that not a large portion of people read them.
Consider that GW's limited editions tend to have something like 1000 copies globally (the numbers vary here and there but that seems to be around where they cite the numbers when they do). Yes that's a big number, but spread over a global market that's a very small number.
I agree a definitive lore book would be fantastic, but at the same time if you had the choice of a £40 lore book or a box of models many people getting into the hobby will go for the box of models. Or paints, or brushes or other things. They'd focus on the game side of the game because the game is what they specifically came for.
Heck look at most GW store shelves, they have rack after rack of games, but the BL books might be only a few shelves, perhaps a whole rack at a major store. By and large they hold far far far less store display. If they were selling like crazy to customers they'd command far more shelf space and inventory of stock.
Do we have any facts or figures about how many black library books are sold, hobby participation, players reading them vs none hobbyists reading them etc?
So as a conclusion the playerbase isn't 75% marines, marine saturation is simply GW's release schedule and that in essence if you ignore all GW's marketing and sales cycle, there isn't as much of a problem on a game to game basis? Obviously beyond the fact there are more marine players than any other faction, just not as disproportionately as expected based on releases.
There clearly is a bias towards people switching to marines because their primary army has no support and stopped being fun to play, with another group of people is switching to marines because the army they would like to play in competitive games simply doesn't do as well as marines.
I know that there has been a decent exodus of people locally into Marines due to the support and the strength of the recent Space Marine books. The current support GW is providing Marines is tilting the playerbase into a single faction in many ways.
Yep. Once again, when play petered out locally, the last couple of weeks where people tried to set up in-person games was just 2-3 people going
"hey, looking to bring my Blood Angels, played against marines the last few weeks so like to have a different opponent this time..."
"Got my salamanders, any non-marine players want to get a game in?"
"Have my ultramarines, would really like to purge some xenos!"
...and then nobody ended up having a game set up. Obviously, the major reason for the petering out was covid, but this isn't the first, or the second, or the third time I've seen nobody end up playing games in a given week because everyone is just playing marines, everyone is sick of marines, but nobody is willing to be the ones to willingly get steamrolled by playing something other than marines. It's almost like this has been going basically non-stop since Codex 2.0 what, a year and a half ago?
Hah hah ! They all want to be heroes. I am pretty sure I can beat many marine armies with my nids thanks to my FW new toys, but they would have to not bring too many eradicators. Or I get eradicated and it's fine, because I really don't mind losing. Perhaps by asking marine players to "not bring too much of X or Y" then the steamrolling of non marine factions would stop ? And peace be restored, and wargaming be resumed !
Hollow wrote: GW isn't Privateer press. Also, what is this nonsense that nobody read BL? Every special edition is sold out. Collector runs are massively successful. Also.... If you made a definitive lore book for each faction it would be good for years and years.
I never said "no one". The point isn't that no one reads them, its that not a large portion of people read them.
Consider that GW's limited editions tend to have something like 1000 copies globally (the numbers vary here and there but that seems to be around where they cite the numbers when they do). Yes that's a big number, but spread over a global market that's a very small number.
I agree a definitive lore book would be fantastic, but at the same time if you had the choice of a £40 lore book or a box of models many people getting into the hobby will go for the box of models. Or paints, or brushes or other things. They'd focus on the game side of the game because the game is what they specifically came for.
Heck look at most GW store shelves, they have rack after rack of games, but the BL books might be only a few shelves, perhaps a whole rack at a major store. By and large they hold far far far less store display. If they were selling like crazy to customers they'd command far more shelf space and inventory of stock.
Do we have any facts or figures about how many black library books are sold, hobby participation, players reading them vs none hobbyists reading them etc?
Seems a lot of baseless conjecture otherwise.
I seem to recall some mentions that BL sales haven't moved much over the years, barring a few landmark series.
BL authors would be the best ones to ask. However we can also base it on the the fact that new books don't generate vast amounts of interest that models do online; that many people at local clubs don't show much awareness/reading of the books and that the books are not commanding major shelf space in GW stores.
We can very easily see that BL books are not as widely read and they are pure lore. We also have examples like PP who show that disconnecting lore and rules can result in fewer and fewer picking up the lore itself. Even to the point where it becomes unprofitable to even print the lore at all.
Consider that we typically have only 1 really active thread on BL books upcoming and even within that thread it rarely gets highly active and it easily falls behind other threads. We do get some lore chatter, but we don't get extensive threads talking about the latest books. At least nothing in comparison to models and rules and such sides of things. Clearly whilst some BL series do make the Best Sellers list that is a different market to the actual model buying community reading them - same as Warhammer TW hits the best sellers but it doesn't mean everyone who wargames has played it.
Typical BL buying community and actual model buying community actually have a huge overlap.
Yeah, I am pretty happy with my 2nd Ed stuff and the contents of Assault on Black Reach and Dark Vengeance. Once I have all of that painted up, I really have no need to go any further with Space Marines, which is nice.
I can just ignore all that stuff. The only "new" stuff I am interested in is Adeptus Mechanicus and Genestealer Cults.
Jidmah wrote: "Hey, SM player, don't bring too many space marines."
I think in a non comp setting, if a playerbase only wants to play marines, it means that SM are OP "in that local meta". So yes, why wouldn' t xenos players ask SM players to gimp themselves ? The SM players want to purge xenos don't they ? Well, players need to communicate here for everyone to be happy.
I for one play in a comp setting so everyone manages to win with their army, so I don't really care what people bring, I want to learn how to beat it whatever is in the list.
Yep, me too. The majority of the primaris range does nothing to thrill me and that seems to be compounding my disfavour with the direction GW is taking the game's rules. I've decided to focus on painting my backlog instead.
So as a conclusion the playerbase isn't 75% marines, marine saturation is simply GW's release schedule and that in essence if you ignore all GW's marketing and sales cycle, there isn't as much of a problem on a game to game basis? Obviously beyond the fact there are more marine players than any other faction, just not as disproportionately as expected based on releases.
There clearly is a bias towards people switching to marines because their primary army has no support and stopped being fun to play, with another group of people is switching to marines because the army they would like to play in competitive games simply doesn't do as well as marines.
I know that there has been a decent exodus of people locally into Marines due to the support and the strength of the recent Space Marine books. The current support GW is providing Marines is tilting the playerbase into a single faction in many ways.
Yep. Once again, when play petered out locally, the last couple of weeks where people tried to set up in-person games was just 2-3 people going
"hey, looking to bring my Blood Angels, played against marines the last few weeks so like to have a different opponent this time..."
"Got my salamanders, any non-marine players want to get a game in?"
"Have my ultramarines, would really like to purge some xenos!"
...and then nobody ended up having a game set up. Obviously, the major reason for the petering out was covid, but this isn't the first, or the second, or the third time I've seen nobody end up playing games in a given week because everyone is just playing marines, everyone is sick of marines, but nobody is willing to be the ones to willingly get steamrolled by playing something other than marines. It's almost like this has been going basically non-stop since Codex 2.0 what, a year and a half ago?
Hah hah ! They all want to be heroes. I am pretty sure I can beat many marine armies with my nids thanks to my FW new toys, but they would have to not bring too many eradicators. Or I get eradicated and it's fine, because I really don't mind losing. Perhaps by asking marine players to "not bring too much of X or Y" then the steamrolling of non marine factions would stop ? And peace be restored, and wargaming be resumed !
Or gw could just price loyalist units appropriately. Those eradicators your scared of evaporating your nids for example should be about 50% more expensive. I expect the next CA to address this. Higher points for loyalists = less loyalists.
One could uncharitably suggest that under-pricing them at release is a way to goose demand. There's too many counter-examples of stuff being released that's crap though, to really draw the conclusion GW does that intentionally.
What ever the numbers are they for sure ain't the numbers of sell stuff like Indomitus or even rule books achive. But maybe this is just the view point of someone not from an english speaking country. Although it is worth pointing out, that translations are not liked much here. w40k lore and rules in polish sound horrific bad.
Reading w40k lore is like painting. Some people like it a lot, majority limit themselfs to what over is obligatory and there is a big group of people that never do it, because they don't care about it.
If GW made two type of codex books. One with all the art and the lore, and the other with just pages of rules. And made both books cost the same, and by that I mean the cost of the rule book being brought up to the price of a book with pictures. The book with the rules would sell out, the book with the pictures would not sell as well.
Reading w40k lore is like painting. Some people like it a lot, majority limit themselfs to what over is obligatory and there is a big group of people that never do it, because they don't care about it.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
Reading w40k lore is like painting. Some people like it a lot, majority limit themselfs to what over is obligatory and there is a big group of people that never do it, because they don't care about it.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
I find painting horrendous and only do it because my friends like playing against painted armies. But that's the thing, they are my friends and the social interaction of game night just can't be replicated by something like TTS. Same for games against other people, I might never see them again but physically being there as 2 persons enjoying the same hobby just can't be beaten. Not that I agree with Karol's "majority" take, but yes I do believe quite a few people don't like the hobby aspect all that much.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
There is a spectrum of things between hate and just not like. Just like there is one between smiling stupid all the time and having a I will kill you face. And painting is more or less obligatory. Not only do stores and events enforce it, but also now the rules give the VP, so playing with an unpainted army means you lose.
And as to why would someone pick real life w40k over not real life, there are many. Starting with stuff like already owning an army for w40k or liking the physical aspect of beating someone you know, instead doing it to some random person online. You don't need to like the stuff you do to do it or to like it results.
And I don't get the your dudes thing at all. Unless you sculpted the whole model yourself or at least its majority, then you aren't playing with your dudes, your playing with dudes that GW made. And colour is just a secondary thing, heck some of us don't even see the difference between some of them, so it doesn't even matter that much.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
There is a spectrum of things between hate and just not like. Just like there is one between smiling stupid all the time and having a I will kill you face. And painting is more or less obligatory. Not only do stores and events enforce it, but also now the rules give the VP, so playing with an unpainted army means you lose.
And as to why would someone pick real life w40k over not real life, there are many. Starting with stuff like already owning an army for w40k or liking the physical aspect of beating someone you know, instead doing it to some random person online. You don't need to like the stuff you do to do it or to like it results.
And I don't get the your dudes thing at all. Unless you sculpted the whole model yourself or at least its majority, then you aren't playing with your dudes, your playing with dudes that GW made. And colour is just a secondary thing, heck some of us don't even see the difference between some of them, so it doesn't even matter that much.
"My dudes" doesnt only mean their color. Its the whole narrative behind your forces. It can be as simple as army composition and doesn't even need to be something you invented. My night lords are still "My dudes" because they have a story in my head about them (They're blessed by Slaanesh even if they do not openly worship her) and they are particularly fond of flaying people alive, even by night lords standards. To represent that, my models have extra bits of flesh i added onto them, nothing too extreme.
Even if i didnt have that very basic narrative in my head, they'd still be my dudes because i get to assemble them, kitbash them and paint them as i wish. I did them. Even if i painted an ultramarine army exactly like GW does, it would still be my dudes.
Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others.
Karol wrote: And I don't get the your dudes thing at all. Unless you sculpted the whole model yourself or at least its majority, then you aren't playing with your dudes, your playing with dudes that GW made.
It's easy. It's just the stories that develop around the models you use. Not the stories GW writes about them, but the memorable things that've happened during your actual games with them.
For example: Here's the tale of how my DA assault marine Sgt, his bionic arm (wich sometimes has rules depending upon the edition) and a Munitorium shipping snafu.
* Waaay back in 3rd ed I was playing in a tourney. My DA jump Sgt and several of his squad became casualties in the 1st game. In removing them from the table the Sgt got dropped. He hit the concrete floor & his sword arm sheered off just above the elbow, skittering away to Emperor knows where. Being a strictly WYSIWYG player, & lacking bitz to fix him, I took a black marker & colored the stump of his arm - the black carapace doing it's job & sealing his wound!
And then, being that WYS guy, I played the next 4 games minus his melee weapon attack. Opponents were quite surprised when I declined attacks based on him not having an arm, let alone a sword....
I intended to fix him once I got home.
* Didn't happen.
* Months later I pull the army out at another event (my DA were my "travel" army") and "*%$@...." I'd forgotten to fix him! So he fought another event minus his sword arm.... More surprised/confused opponents. "I'll fix him when I get home."
Repeat this sequence a few more times. Somewhere in there I jokingly told an opponent that the Munitorium must've lost his bionic arm in shipping....
* Eventually plastic Necrons come out. I use a spare arm, a pin, & a power sword and crafted the Sgt a bionic arm. Thing is? I didn't go pull the DA case. (I'll do it later....) I put the arm in the magnetic bolt dish on the work desk so it wouldn't get lost.
* Months later I take the DA to another event.... See where this is going?
Same thing "I'll fix him when I get home". A long drive later, put the army away not thinking about that arm....
* Repeat sequence several more times.
* Eventually, late in 4th edition, actual real world YEARS after his injury, I got around to attaching the Sgts 'new" bionic arm. Yay! The techs finally caught it up to him!
Yes, GW made the model, the Necron arm, the power sword, & even the paint/glue used. But that's MY Dark Angels assault marine Sgt. It's the story of his arm that sets him apart from everybody else's Assault Marine Sgt minis.
I've been doing this "Crusade" thing long before it was in the rules!
And in my Guard case I've got a stormtrooper squad that's killed (and salvaged) a Reaver Titan! But that's a tale for another time....
So you've been playing a few years now. Any of your minis have stories attached?
I know some people really take their own army's narrative super seriously, and that's amazing.
But I know a lot of people don't. To them they're just Space Marines that get the best buff if they're painted green (or whatever the case).
Although we can debate just how much less popular a separate lore tome would be, surely we can agree it would be less popular than the codexes are at the moment?
Only the people interested in lore enough to buy it would buy it, but a lot of those people will already be familiar with the lore from previous codexes/novels/lexicanum and wouldn't buy it anyway.
Meanwhile, GW would be obligated to sell their rules-codexes cheaper due to their noticeably less content, they would drive away sales if they kept the current prices.
That means GW makes less money on the near 100% of players that buy codexes.
Granted, selling this format cheaper would encourage some people who currently refuse to buy the codexes (such as myself) to pick them up. But IMO that's not an argument to have a separate lore tome, that's an argument to sell pocket-editions of codexes with just the rules.
Karol wrote: And I don't get the your dudes thing at all. Unless you sculpted the whole model yourself or at least its majority, then you aren't playing with your dudes, your playing with dudes that GW made.
Spoiler:
It's easy. It's just the stories that develop around the models you use. Not the stories GW writes about them, but the memorable things that've happened during your actual games with them.
For example: Here's the tale of how my DA assault marine Sgt, his bionic arm (wich sometimes has rules depending upon the edition) and a Munitorium shipping snafu.
* Waaay back in 3rd ed I was playing in a tourney. My DA jump Sgt and several of his squad became casualties in the 1st game. In removing them from the table the Sgt got dropped. He hit the concrete floor & his sword arm sheered off just above the elbow, skittering away to Emperor knows where. Being a strictly WYSIWYG player, & lacking bitz to fix him, I took a black marker & colored the stump of his arm - the black carapace doing it's job & sealing his wound! And then, being that WYS guy, I played the next 4 games minus his melee weapon attack. Opponents were quite surprised when I declined attacks based on him not having an arm, let alone a sword.... I intended to fix him once I got home.
* Didn't happen.
* Months later I pull the army out at another event (my DA were my "travel" army") and "*%$@...." I'd forgotten to fix him! So he fought another event minus his sword arm.... More surprised/confused opponents. "I'll fix him when I get home." Repeat this sequence a few more times. Somewhere in there I jokingly told an opponent that the Munitorium must've lost his bionic arm in shipping....
* Eventually plastic Necrons come out. I use a spare arm, a pin, & a power sword and crafted the Sgt a bionic arm. Thing is? I didn't go pull the DA case. (I'll do it later....) I put the arm in the magnetic bolt dish on the work desk so it wouldn't get lost.
* Months later I take the DA to another event.... See where this is going? Same thing "I'll fix him when I get home". A long drive later, put the army away not thinking about that arm....
* Repeat sequence several more times.
* Eventually, late in 4th edition, actual real world YEARS after his injury, I got around to attaching the Sgts 'new" bionic arm. Yay! The techs finally caught it up to him!
Yes, GW made the model, the Necron arm, the power sword, & even the paint/glue used. But that's MY Dark Angels assault marine Sgt. It's the story of his arm that sets him apart from everybody else's Assault Marine Sgt minis. I've been doing this "Crusade" thing long before it was in the rules!
And in my Guard case I've got a stormtrooper squad that's killed (and salvaged) a Reaver Titan! But that's a tale for another time....
So you've been playing a few years now. Any of your minis have stories attached?
Ah that one time a sole Khorne berzerker of mine earned his Trophy by Powerfisting alone a Necron Shard into oblivion. He still has his trophy rack, allbeit i really need to update his painting. Since then he runs around with an old chaos barbarian banner as a trophy rack
There was that one squad of my R&H grenadiers that i sadly don't own anymore that singlehandedly won me a game against Tau by dropping in an floorwiping a full 10 man squad of tau out of a valkyrie onto an objective Maximum badassery was had that day.
The time were my R&H commander curbstomped a Dark eldar archon with a power sword.
The invincible decimator of doom. ( that one is ridicoulus especially in context of the lore of Decimators)
My old flying circus for my Mekwarband reenacting Vietnam against some DA marines. 2 Dakka 1 Burna.. i seriously need to rebuild my ork army at some point.
Reading w40k lore is like painting. Some people like it a lot, majority limit themselfs to what over is obligatory and there is a big group of people that never do it, because they don't care about it.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
Converting? Kitbashing, posing, greenstuffing, using plasticard, that's what I like the most. I'll paint my models, but not because I enjoy it so much (eventually... I promise!).
Reading w40k lore is like painting. Some people like it a lot, majority limit themselfs to what over is obligatory and there is a big group of people that never do it, because they don't care about it.
I'm gonna need some kind of source for this "Majority" of people who hate painting and just do it because it is obligatory..what is the point of playing 40k over pretty much any other game is the fact that you can paint your miniatures to look like your dudes.
Why would you ever choose to play 40k over - as an example - the totally free TTS video game program version of 40k if you didn't care about the hobby aspect?
Converting? Kitbashing, posing, greenstuffing, using plasticard, that's what I like the most. I'll paint my models, but not because I enjoy it so much (eventually... I promise!).
Just commission them to get painted. With my old Necrons and Marines I just did basic silvers and blacks. However with the scheme I'm looking at doing now for my Marines (white/gray or green/blue marbling with almost rusted weapons) I would suck too much to get it correct.
For me, it makes no sense to play this game if I don't build and paint my models. I'm not the best painter, but I prefer playing with my mediocre projects than grey plastic or a commissioned one.
But that's what makes this hobby so cool, everyone enjoys one part of it. I enjoy all of them.
Slayer-Fan123 794465 11008710 wrote:
Just commission them to get painted. With my old Necrons and Marines I just did basic silvers and blacks. However with the scheme I'm looking at doing now for my Marines (white/gray or green/blue marbling with almost rusted weapons) I would suck too much to get it correct.
I bought my army already painted. Only thing that wasn't finished were two rhinos. And they are not painted now, just like they were not painted at the begining of 8th ed.
Seen ton of people order commissions or just never paint their models. With a lot of people playing the game for maybe a year or a year and a half, investing time and money in to painting the models, just to later have problems with selling them or selling them at a lower price because they are painted, is just stupid.
If someone knows they are going to be playing the same army for the next 2 editions, painting probably makes more or even a lot of sense. Specialy if someone has free money, time and space to do it. But good luck finding many 13-15 year olds who know what they are going to be doing in 6 years time.
Slayer-Fan123 794465 11008710 wrote:
Just commission them to get painted. With my old Necrons and Marines I just did basic silvers and blacks. However with the scheme I'm looking at doing now for my Marines (white/gray or green/blue marbling with almost rusted weapons) I would suck too much to get it correct.
I bought my army already painted. Only thing that wasn't finished were two rhinos. And they are not painted now, just like they were not painted at the begining of 8th ed.
Seen ton of people order commissions or just never paint their models. With a lot of people playing the game for maybe a year or a year and a half, investing time and money in to painting the models, just to later have problems with selling them or selling them at a lower price because they are painted, is just stupid.
If someone knows they are going to be playing the same army for the next 2 editions, painting probably makes more or even a lot of sense. Specialy if someone has free money, time and space to do it. But good luck finding many 13-15 year olds who know what they are going to be doing in 6 years time.
you shouldnt get into an army with the intention of selling it later on in my opinion. Every army i've got are still on my shelves no matter how bad they might get. The only reason i would sell any of them is if i really needed the money all of a sudden.
Me? I like playing games, & building the models/terrain.
Painting? I'm pretty good +. But aside from terrain, unless I'm being paid, I normally tend to paint my own stuff slowly & randomly. So I have a system where if a model/squad does something noteworthy it "earns paint". 1 model/squad per game at most. Not all games result in paint being earned. Think of it as rewarding the forces MVP.
I paint more, & more focused, though when depressed or stressed out. So the less I'm painting, the better things are.
I have no qualms though about buying already painted stuff, commissioning work, playing with WiP, or even bare metal/resin/plastic....
Eldarsif wrote: I try to be optimistic about this. Marine releases means I save money as I have no interest in collecting more Marines or playing them right now.
I am also lucky that a decent portion of my closest friends who play Warhammer are not overtly competitive.
Super lucky. I had my attempt at creating a TTS40K night for my friends at the beginning of 9th completely wrecked in part because I had one longtime friend who is deeply into the game and obsessed with space marines, amongst a large number of people who were new, and were not so enamored - and were turned off hard to them by Salamanders Aggressors Long-Range Marksmen Successors back when they could double-tap on Overwatch, and who had -2 AP, and +1 to Wound because it was Turn 2 and they were Space Marines, and he was so pleased with himself for ruining a second-game newbie's Defiler charging into them. He couldn't even see why this was wrong, and I spent more of the next month than it was worth explaining to him that, no, CSM were not nearly in so good a place, to no avail to his thick skull.
Gods, the thought of it just makes me want to vomit. The next month was a couple of reasonable games which were in no way worth the stupid nerdfights and strained friendships.
Yeah, 40K just makes me too physically ill to think about right now. I'm going to get off these boards, all 40K news sites, subreddits, feeds, and anything more official than Thingiverse, and just glance in about a year. Maybe when the pandemic is under control, I have a new group to play with, codexes are all out and the bitter taste of Space Marine is finally washed out of my mouth.
Eldarsif wrote: I try to be optimistic about this. Marine releases means I save money as I have no interest in collecting more Marines or playing them right now.
I am also lucky that a decent portion of my closest friends who play Warhammer are not overtly competitive.
Super lucky. I had my attempt at creating a TTS40K night for my friends at the beginning of 9th completely wrecked in part because I had one longtime friend who is deeply into the game and obsessed with space marines, amongst a large number of people who were new, and were not so enamored - and were turned off hard to them by Salamanders Aggressors Long-Range Marksmen Successors back when they could double-tap on Overwatch, and who had -2 AP, and +1 to Wound because it was Turn 2 and they were Space Marines, and he was so pleased with himself for ruining a second-game newbie's Defiler charging into them. He couldn't even see why this was wrong, and I spent more of the next month than it was worth explaining to him that, no, CSM were not nearly in so good a place, to no avail to his thick skull.
Gods, the thought of it just makes me want to vomit. The next month was a couple of reasonable games which were in no way worth the stupid nerdfights and strained friendships.
Yeah, 40K just makes me too physically ill to think about right now. I'm going to get off these boards, all 40K news sites, subreddits, feeds, and anything more official than Thingiverse, and just glance in about a year. Maybe when the pandemic is under control, I have a new group to play with, codexes are all out and the bitter taste of Space Marine is finally washed out of my mouth.
Whilst I get all that, they must have known they were being a douche with that list before even turning up, surely?
Eldarain wrote: Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?
pretty much all games that have a competitive and a casual crowd.
I've seen the same thing happen in MTG when people play top tier decks.
I've seen the same thing happen in LoL when people play top tier champs.
I've seen the same thing happen in CoD when people use "noobtubes" and shields.
Eldarain wrote: Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?
pretty much all games that have a competitive and a casual crowd.
I've seen the same thing happen in MTG when people play top tier decks.
I've seen the same thing happen in LoL when people play top tier champs.
I've seen the same thing happen in CoD when people use "noobtubes" and shields.
People complain, this will never change.
It's not just competitive VS casual, its also a matter of understanding the game itself. The bad match up is competitive skilled vs casual unskilled because there its not just a different mindset that is setting them apart, but a wide variation in game knowledge and skill.
The two mindsets aren't just what sets them apart its a distinct variation in understanding the mechanical side of the game and also experience. The higher skilled player (who doesn't have to be competitive) can have issues trying to "dumb down" their game because its all about making illogical (to them) choices. Meanwhile the unskilled might well not see the issues because they "don't know what they don't know". If they are very casually minded they might also not want to put the time into learning much more than they already do.
In big and diverse groups of players these two approaches can often be fine because there's enough of each mindset to provide games for all. In very high focused groups and/or smaller groups the issues become more problematic. A group that's all competitive can be hard for casuals to get into; meanwhile a small group just won't have the high diversity of players at various skill and approach sets.
Sure some of 40K's internal balance as a game also comes into it; but you'd still get the same issues. Heck MTG has these issues in buckets because a skilled good list can win every single time against a badly made list by an unskilled player. With the only losses being really unlucky shuffling.
BlaxicanX wrote: There has never been a time within the last 15+ years that the game was not primarily catered to Imperial armies.
As for the idea that GW is losing customers, though? Objectively that just isn't true. GW has made more money in the past three years than at any other point in its history.
A lot of that is not from models.
Plus McDs is making great money selling garbage that makes people sick. Just because it works in this upside down world doesnt mean that it is a good thing.
you shouldnt get into an army with the intention of selling it later on in my opinion. Every army i've got are still on my shelves no matter how bad they might get. The only reason i would sell any of them is if i really needed the money all of a sudden.
40k's rules are not well-made enough for this. An army can go from fun to unplayable at the drop of a hat.
you shouldnt get into an army with the intention of selling it later on in my opinion. Every army i've got are still on my shelves no matter how bad they might get. The only reason i would sell any of them is if i really needed the money all of a sudden.
40k's rules are not well-made enough for this. An army can go from fun to unplayable at the drop of a hat.
I think this sums it up, it's not unplayable unless you were renegades and heretics. Usually a casual collector can add a couple of bits and keep on trucking, it's only the "I own exactly the top 1% 2k list for 1 army" types who get that way.
Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?
Well people aren't writing their own rules. If you have a GK army in 8th, and your opponent plays Inari, then there isn't much blame on the game results on the sidde any of the players. Doesn't even matter if it is pre Inari WD codex or before. The rules writen by GW more or less decide the match up for you. Only the tier 1-2 armies have a more or less fair chance against each other, but there always seems to be a list that is just better then everyone. Like Harlis, which are great vs every army being played right now. So it is not hard to imagine that if your army isn't tier 1 or 2 for 2-3 editions, someone can get angry. Specialy if over those 2-3 editions they paid money for books and models that were suppose to fix this.
you shouldnt get into an army with the intention of selling it later on in my opinion. Every army i've got are still on my shelves no matter how bad they might get. The only reason i would sell any of them is if i really needed the money all of a sudden.
Well that is an interesting idea, but even without ever stepping in to a store outside of Poland, I know that the chance that new players stay and play w40k for ever is rather slim. W40k has a big turn over of new player, and those that play it for longer are mostly dudes way over 20 and often in their 30s. Out of the over 30 people that I saw start playing different armies in 8th, only 3 are still playing. And 2 of those are tournament players, whose older brother played tournaments and the 3ed is me. And I have problems with stopping doing stuff.
you shouldnt get into an army with the intention of selling it later on in my opinion. Every army i've got are still on my shelves no matter how bad they might get. The only reason i would sell any of them is if i really needed the money all of a sudden.
Well that is an interesting idea, but even without ever stepping in to a store outside of Poland, I know that the chance that new players stay and play w40k for ever is rather slim. W40k has a big turn over of new player, and those that play it for longer are mostly dudes way over 20 and often in their 30s. Out of the over 30 people that I saw start playing different armies in 8th, only 3 are still playing. And 2 of those are tournament players, whose older brother played tournaments and the 3ed is me. And I have problems with stopping doing stuff.
you misunderstand my meaning.
you shouldnt get into 40k with the idea that you'll ever sell your army.
You should get in 40k because the game interests you.
And it makes sense that a prepainted army sells for less than NOS stuff.
Here are the people that will buy each level of models :
NOS : litterally anyone that plays or wants to play the army
Assembled : litterally anyone that plays or wants to play the army and doesnt want to do advanced conversions
Painted : Either someone that wants to start a brand new army (You), someone willing to strip and repaint (more work than just NOS/assembled) or if you're ultra lucky, someone that already has an army with the same paintjob.
Notice how less people will want to buy painted stuff? That means low demand, that means you have to sell it cheap to be able to sell it at all.
Eldarain wrote: Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?
pretty much all games that have a competitive and a casual crowd.
I've seen the same thing happen in MTG when people play top tier decks.
I've seen the same thing happen in LoL when people play top tier champs.
I've seen the same thing happen in CoD when people use "noobtubes" and shields.
People complain, this will never change.
As I'm heavily invested in two of those communities, I can only tell you that this is definitely not the case.
When MtG is fethed up, people blame WotC. When LoL is fethed up, people blame Riot. When 40k is fethed up, people blame other people for not playing the game right.
Large parts of the 40k community are just brainwashed like that.
Enough of it is that claims of GW losing money is ridiculous.
Plus McDs is making great money selling garbage that makes people sick. Just because it works in this upside down world doesnt mean that it is a good thing.
"popularity doesn't equal quality" doesn't change the fact that the assertion being made was that GW is losing money- and that is simply, objectively untrue. You don't have to like the direction the game has gone in, but it's a break from reality to try to assert that this direction hasn't proved wildly popular with the fanbase at large.
Eldarain wrote: Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?
pretty much all games that have a competitive and a casual crowd.
I've seen the same thing happen in MTG when people play top tier decks.
I've seen the same thing happen in LoL when people play top tier champs.
I've seen the same thing happen in CoD when people use "noobtubes" and shields.
People complain, this will never change.
As I'm heavily invested in two of those communities, I can only tell you that this is definitely not the case.
When MtG is fethed up, people blame WotC. When LoL is fethed up, people blame Riot. When 40k is fethed up, people blame other people for not playing the game right.
Large parts of the 40k community are just brainwashed like that.
i guess our experiences vary a lot then.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"
For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".
Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"
i guess our experiences vary a lot then.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"
For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".
Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"
Ehh can't speak to much for MtG, but from what I know control is just seen as "anti-fun" so you are immediately labeled an abuser/lame guy for playing. Same for those champs you mentioned because they can seemingly can get stomped in lane, get a lucky teamfight and just roll the game from there in low elo. But in the latter case, people might flame you for playing it but most players I know/have seen still blame the company for designing/balancing those champs like that in the first place. At the very least they won't say: Riot is perfect and almighty and you should just suck it up. Very much unlike some 40k players for whom GW's word seems gospel and they can do no wrong.
As I'm heavily invested in two of those communities, I can only tell you that this is definitely not the case.
When MtG is fethed up, people blame WotC. When LoL is fethed up, people blame Riot. When 40k is fethed up, people blame other people for not playing the game right.
Large parts of the 40k community are just brainwashed like that.
Plenty of people in League get pissed off at you for playing something perceived as "overpowered", which is to say any high skill-cap high damage usually attack damage character like Yasuo, Zed, Riven, or whoever.
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.
.....in what possible terms could eldar players be more entitled than fething 'we got 3 codexes in the span of a year while everybody else combined got 3, deal with it, we're the main army that the game is about' marine players?
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.
Because they grumble a lot about a large chunk of their army being stuck with fifteen-year-old resin minis?
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.
.....in what possible terms could eldar players be more entitled than fething 'we got 3 codexes in the span of a year while everybody else combined got 3, deal with it, we're the main army that the game is about' marine players?
Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.
Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.
Karol wrote: Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?
Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?
yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.
On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.
Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.
.....in what possible terms could eldar players be more entitled than fething 'we got 3 codexes in the span of a year while everybody else combined got 3, deal with it, we're the main army that the game is about' marine players?
Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.
Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.
I'll swap you - you can have a single marine army with 30 year old miniatures in it, and a small unit list. But hey, you get a few spam gimmick list options using those old units.
I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"
Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"
Some points of similarity and difference. If you're playing control in MtG or LoL you're having fun by going out of your way to make absolutely sure your opponent can't play the game at all. Anti-fun as said above (and a good bit of why I quit MtG). That style isn't just that the mana cost is one too low (though such a thing can enable or disable the style in a given set) it's that you're denying agency to your opponent. Similarly with LoL, some of the characters you mention have hard CC or insta-kill move sets if given a tiny bit of help/slack from ally/opponent team. They don't outplay the opponent face to face, they just kill you dead without interaction.
Anti-fun in 40K is usually giving your opponent a lack of options (like having countering strats), giving a no-good-odds scenario (like having an obviously undercosted list), or a gimmick that just isn't interactive (shooting more than a quarter of a list off the board in top of T1). Sure, you can get an easy consistent win by playing the best list against unprepared opponents. There's a phrase for that. Idk why it seems like I'm in the minority for enjoying surmountable challenges.
In 40K there doesn't need to be that level of imbalance to make some armies/units just hopeless against others and thus unfun. That's on GW. A list with poor synergy, lack of win condition, exposed weaknesses are all on the player. Poor placement, risks taken, strats overlooked is all on player.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.
Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.
So...Eldar players are entitled because they were OP and you had no fun playing against them five years ago? Including the people who weren't playing then, or the people who didn't buy six flyers to play the broken build in 8th, or the people who just want the infantry that have sucked for fifteen years to stop being terrible?
Is this part of the "there's one incredibly powerful build in your Codex, stop complaining!" thing that makes people say GK are in a fine place right now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: ...I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.
Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.
So...Eldar players are entitled because they were OP and you had no fun playing against them five years ago? Including the people who weren't playing then, or the people who didn't buy six flyers to play the broken build in 8th, or the people who just want the infantry that have sucked for fifteen years to stop being terrible?
Is this part of the "there's one incredibly powerful build in your Codex, stop complaining!" thing that makes people say GK are in a fine place right now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: ...I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants...
*dreamy sigh*
Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
I have heard many times that Eldar players are entitled, but never seen it. I have never seen any particular group of players act entitled for that matter. Specific individuals? Absolutely. But a trend among a certain army? Not at all.
If I was asked for a trend I'd have to say marine players being tired of their own army's releases. That's unique to the faction!
My favorite is when SM players yell at Eldar players for being entitled and OP in current or past editions The irony just seems to flow right over them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
Back up a step. Eldar have had OP builds in the past and people make third-party models, therefore they have no right to complain about anything?
Saying the army has been OP also has nothing to do with people wanting new sculpts or their infantry to not be terrible.
6 flyers was bs in 8th? That's not very useful for people who want to play an Aspect Warrior and Wraith army. It's not very useful for Ulthwe players.
The only actual entitlement I've seen in 40k ever has been, funnily enough, from Marine players and that's only because there's so many of them so any idiots like that are more obviously seen. I think my favourite was a Space Wolf player saying that his army was neglected and hated by GW because the troops were from 2009, completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of non-Marine armies at that point had older sculpts and fewer overall releases. It's the same kind of person who back in January 2020 would have said that Iron Hands were fine, or that Salamanders at the start of 9th were underpowered. These people live on a different fething planet and there's no point in engaging with them.
Void__Dragon wrote: Plenty of people in League get pissed off at you for playing something perceived as "overpowered", which is to say any high skill-cap high damage usually attack damage character like Yasuo, Zed, Riven, or whoever.
Considering how "vocal" that community is about criticizing players who they see at fault for losing the game, people are like ten to a hundred times more likely to insult my parents or my assumed lifestyle than blame me for picking a powerful champion.
I can't believe the way this thread went. So its ok for marines to literally blot out the sun with releases and rules yet if an army was or is OP it's fine they get pretty much ignored ?
When I was young, I can agree I loved to see over powered armies suffer eventually, but as you get older you realize it isn't the players fault, maybe the GW should learn how to actually make balanced rules. Maybe everyone should have equal model support and rules, that is really all anyone is asking for.
I don't even play Eldar btw but i'd love for people to get fair treatment for the armies we all spend lots of time and money on.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i guess our experiences vary a lot then. I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked. I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"
I have attended hundreds of events and played tens of thousands of games of MtG on two continents, and never once did someone blame me personally for playing a particular deck unless it's taking a multiplayer game to a grinding halt. People do ask you to take a different deck/to not play against a specific deck from time to time, but that's a completely different level from people outright throwing a tantrum or even dropping from games because you brought three of some unit they perceive as powerful. And yes, control and extremely fast combos are notoriously unfun to play against because it can turn into a non-game. It's not hard to understand that people want more out of their game night than drawing, passing and shuffling.
For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".
Yeah, no. That's just people trying to find a reason besides themselves for why their team is losing. People complain about champions, items, riot or straight up insult you. But getting blamed for picking a champion? That's extremely rare. And I'm absolutely sure that there are no whole threads in gaming communities complaining about people picking certain champions, unlike for 40k. Most of the champions that people complain about aren't even powerful, they are just too bad to understand how to counter them. Cue team running away from a Master Yi/Zed in panic instead of just turning around and nuking him. Oh, and you can just ban them. And really, I haven't been ranked above silver in years, but how low do you need drop these days so people start to complain in ranked about trying to win?
Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"
The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list to which I applied random limitations according to my head-canon? Total TFGWAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*
VladimirHerzog wrote: i guess our experiences vary a lot then.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"
I have attended hundreds of events and played tens of thousands of games of MtG on two continents, and never once did someone blame me personally for playing a particular deck unless it's taking a multiplayer game to a grinding halt. People do ask you to take a different deck/to not play against a specific deck from time to time, but that's a completely different level from people outright throwing a tantrum or even dropping from games because you brought three of some unit they perceive as powerful.
And yes, control and extremely fast combos are notoriously unfun to play against because it can turn into a non-game. It's not hard to understand that people want more out of their game night than drawing, passing and shuffling.
For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".
Yeah, no. That's just people trying to find a reason besides themselves for why their team is losing. People complain about champions, items, riot or straight up insult you. But getting blamed for picking a champion? That's extremely rare. And I'm absolutely sure that there are no whole threads in gaming communities complaining about people picking certain champions, unlike for 40k.
Most of the champions that people complain about aren't even powerful, they are just too bad to understand how to counter them. Cue team running away from a Master Yi/Zed in panic instead of just turning around and nuking him. Oh, and you can just ban them.
And really, I haven't been ranked above silver in years, but how low do you need drop these days so people start to complain in ranked about trying to win?
Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"
The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list? Total TFGWAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*
*Hyperbole
You're comparing structured ranked e-sports games to a casual throwdown between friends in a tabletop game. As you say one has bans, years of stable development, millions playing daily with instant stats and anonymous instant matchmaking. The other is some people arranging to rocking up beforehand who can then chat before something that will take a few hours of the time in person.
In the latter if the expectations aren't spelled out then it leads to these sorts of threads, especially in a situation where you have open discourse with your opponent pre-game. In LoL/any moba you know what you're signing up for when you hit the queue button, especially if playing ranked.
No this isn't the magical "victim complex" you seem to think keeps happening, it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I can't believe the way this thread went. So its ok for marines to literally blot out the sun with releases and rules yet if an army was or is OP it's fine they get pretty much ignored ?
Marine players think that way, because they are entitled. Simple as that.
You're comparing structured ranked e-sports games to a casual throwdown between friends in a tabletop game. As you say one has bans, years of stable development, millions playing daily with instant stats and anonymous instant matchmaking. The other is some people arranging to rocking up beforehand who can then chat before something that will take a few hours of the time in person.
In the latter if the expectations aren't spelled out then it leads to these sorts of threads, especially in a situation where you have open discourse with your opponent pre-game. In LoL/any moba you know what you're signing up for when you hit the queue button, especially if playing ranked.
No this isn't the magical "victim complex" you seem to think keeps happening, it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.
So, what is your excuse for GW still not having reached the same level of rules-writing and balance that WotC had already reached 20 years ago?
On the timeline of MtG's evolution, 40k is somewhere in 1997.
Dudeface wrote: it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.
The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.
Dudeface wrote: it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.
The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.
To be fair, both WotC and Riot do that for their respective games and both also feth that up regularly as well. The discussion was about the mindset of the player base though.
Dudeface wrote: it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.
The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.
To be fair, both WotC and Riot do that for their respective games and both also feth that up regularly as well. The discussion was about the mindset of the player base though.
If that is the case why does:
So, what is your excuse for GW still not having reached the same level of rules-writing and balance that WotC had already reached 20 years ago?
enter the conversation?
I have no excuse, they're evidently not the best at it. But if I want to ensure my random collection of casual crap doesn't get face stomped by the newest meta army, I am capable of asking my opponent what they're intending and shaping the tone of the game.
In LoL you can't ask the enemy team before the game starts whether they want to practice for ranked or if they're just picking fun stuff etc.
Jidmah wrote:Do you keep picking LoL as an example because you don't know MtG well enough, or do you keep dodging the question because you dislike the answer?
Dudeface wrote:
I have no excuse, they're evidently not the best at it.
I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.
What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.
I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.
Because it's not effortless to moderate your own games, at all.
It requires a community of gamers all with the same outlook on the game.
I used to live in a small town, 40k players in total was about 8, and that had split into two smaller groups due to differences in personality.
If you didn't fit into either of those two groups in that town, you wouldn't be able to play a 40k the way you like. Sucks to be you I guess, you never should have invested £hundreds.
Plus, I want to be able to build an army the way I want with what I want without having to worry about if my favourite unit is too meta at the moment and I need to not take.
I actually agree that 40k can never be as balanced as a cardgame, mostly because 40k has expanded to the point where there's such vastly difference armies.
How are you supposed to balance Orks vs Knights vs Space Marines?
But that doesn't mean it can't be significantly better than it is now, and that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't need to be balanced.
kirotheavenger wrote: Because it's not effortless to moderate your own games, at all.
It requires a community of gamers all with the same outlook on the game.
I used to live in a small town, 40k players in total was about 8, and that had split into two smaller groups due to differences in personality.
If you didn't fit into either of those two groups in that town, you wouldn't be able to play a 40k the way you like. Sucks to be you I guess, you never should have invested £hundreds.
Plus, I want to be able to build an army the way I want with what I want without having to worry about if my favourite unit is too meta at the moment and I need to not take.
I actually agree that 40k can never be as balanced as a cardgame, mostly because 40k has expanded to the point where there's such vastly difference armies.
How are you supposed to balance Orks vs Knights vs Space Marines?
But that doesn't mean it can't be significantly better than it is now, and that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't need to be balanced.
I don't disagree, it certainly could be better balanced and should be. It'd be lovely to be able to just take any list and be comfy knowing you'll get a fair game. Sadly it's not there yet though and what's left is the option to talk to people. Even if you know they play more competitively or w/e at least you can adjust your lists slightly and you're not caught by surprise.
People don't discuss what they can do about a problem they generally just complain it isn't fixed for them by GW. We can all agree every unit should be balanced and that GW needs to do better really but that isn't going to happen over night.
Perhaps that's because people do discuss what their games and come to agree on a common gaming direction (or leave the group/hobby entirely).
But people would rather discuss the cause of an issue rather than they ad-hoc solution they've been forced to come up with as a result of GW's incompetence/uncaring attitude to said problem?
kirotheavenger wrote: Perhaps that's because people do discuss what their games and come to agree on a common gaming direction (or leave the group/hobby entirely).
But people would rather discuss the cause of an issue rather than they ad-hoc solution they've been forced to come up with as a result of GW's incompetence/uncaring attitude to said problem?
Well the cause is GW haven't done a good enough job, there's not really anything to discuss is there?
Well, technically you can start fix up things in your local community, that takes long though and requires a whole slew of cooperation.
Further it has the issue of beeing exclusive to a group which can stiffle growth of a community alot.
Dudeface wrote: I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.
That's just another excuse to suck at writing rules. All the steps that took WotC to professionalize their game development process could easily be adapted by GW for 40k if they wanted. The third dimension.
The only thing which GW really has as an excuse is that playtesting games takes a bit more effort because games take longer and testing new models is a bit more tricky than slapping a sticker on an existing card.
What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.
Because it's unnecessary. The only reason why I have to do it is because GW didn't do their job, and now I have to do it for them.
A game which such clearly defined boundaries as 40k should not need this amount of moderation. All that should be required is agreeing on a mission pack, game size and on whether you are playing "though" or "soft" lists. That's all it takes to have a game of MtG, after all.
I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.
Refer to my signature for my opinion on "firm believes".
The complexity of 40k is ridiculously low compared to video games and there is sufficient data to balance the game against.
The two main reason why they improve so slowly is
a) lack of experience (they literally begun understanding their own game somewhen during 8th)
b) slow iteration speed because of the paper medium
You also are a proof of the whole phenomenon: Despite you admitting that GW did a bad job, you still somehow see the players being responsible to make the best of it. Literally no other gaming community does this.
Dudeface wrote: I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.
That's just another excuse to suck at writing rules. All the steps that took WotC to professionalize their game development process could easily be adapted by GW for 40k if they wanted. The third dimension.
The only thing which GW really has as an excuse is that playtesting games takes a bit more effort because games take longer and testing new models is a bit more tricky than slapping a sticker on an existing card.
What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.
Because it's unnecessary. The only reason why I have to do it is because GW didn't do their job, and now I have to do it for them.
A game which such clearly defined boundaries as 40k should not need this amount of moderation. All that should be required is agreeing on a mission pack, game size and on whether you are playing "though" or "soft" lists. That's all it takes to have a game of MtG, after all.
I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.
Refer to my signature for my opinion on "firm believes".
The complexity of 40k is ridiculously low compared to video games and there is sufficient data to balance the game against.
The two main reason why they improve so slowly is
a) lack of experience (they literally begun understanding their own game somewhen during 8th)
b) slow iteration speed because of the paper medium
You also are a proof of the whole phenomenon: Despite you admitting that GW did a bad job, you still somehow see the players being responsible to make the best of it. Literally no other gaming community does this.
Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online, or try and make something work with your opponents.
I don't see other players as responsible for balancing the game, I see myself as responsible for making sure the 3 hour investment I have with someone is what I'm expecting.
For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?
Dudeface wrote: Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online,
Oh, now pointing out flaws in the game is "bitching"? Good talk, I suggest you stop "bitching" online and go away from the screen to reflect why you had to resort to ad hominem attacks when trying to defend a clearly flawed product from justified criticism.
or try and make something work with your opponents.
The point of this discussion is that in the 40k community it is normal to attack said opponents and blame them for when you can't make it work for whatever reason, when the one at fault is clearly GW.
For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?
I don't know, I'm spending time on dakka to pass my time, while you apparently do so to make yourself feel miserable? I'm sorry, I don't believe in showering people or company in praise where none is due.
Saga of the Beast, War of the Spider? Great stuff. Rules writing in 9th? Not perfect, but getting better. General balance right now? Not good. It's as simple as that.
Dudeface wrote: Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online,
Oh, now pointing out flaws in the game is "bitching"?
Good talk, I suggest you stop "bitching" online and go away from the screen to reflect why you had to resort to ad hominem attacks when trying to defend a clearly flawed product from justified criticism.
or try and make something work with your opponents.
The point of this discussion is that in the 40k community it is normal to attack said opponents and blame them for when you can't make it work for whatever reason, when the one at fault is clearly GW.
For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?
I don't know, I'm spending time on dakka to pass my time, while you apparently do so to make yourself feel miserable? I'm sorry, I don't believe in showering people or company in praise where none is due.
Saga of the Beast, War of the Spider? Great stuff. Rules writing in 9th? Not perfect, but getting better. General balance right now? Not good. It's as simple as that.
So to clarify, there is a universal unspoken truth that general balance is bad right now, that GW is doing a poor job. Yet we manage as a community 16 pages of re-phrasing those same points in a cyclical self sustaining manner.
You've deemed it unreasonable to act on this as a community, leaving the only course of action to consistently re-tell one another how bad of a job they're doing and thus rendering almost any conversation on the topic pointless.
Dakka as a forum needs a dedicated area people can just complain and fulfil that need I think, it's also against forum rules which is why we end up with these tangential threads.
Edit: you're right though, the community online does actually make me miserable through one means or another, so I think I'm quitting. I'll probably lurk still but I'm randomising my password and signing out.
Sorry, took me a while to drag myself away from my furious letter writing to GW demanding OP stuff for my beloved Eldar.
Have faith children of Asur, the pitiful Mon-keigh in the rules writing team always listen to me, our day of salvation is at hand!
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
The only answer to marines is to not play against them. Xenos and chaos players should just say no to marine matchups and let them play with other marines.
In the grim darkness of far away forums, there is only SM and Eldar players whinging over who is more entitled, while Chaos players say they've not had anything good since 3.5, and other Xenos factions may as well not exist.
Really think a major issue with 40k is that its hard to measure skill. Which leads to this false idea that there isn't any. In the final rounds of a tournament you can probably start assuming player skill is roughly equal, and list imbalances (or just luck) may start being the main determinant of winning. For ye average group of people playing garage hammer though, this usually isn't the case. The guy who wins all the time is probably just much more interested in the hobby.
Before I say anything about 40k (which I largely agree with you on), I feel the need to point out some issues on your comparison to MTG and LoL. False equivalency is a sticking point with me, and I see these points pop up in a LOT of 40k conversations.
Some points of similarity and difference. If you're playing control in MtG or LoL you're having fun by going out of your way to make absolutely sure your opponent can't play the game at all. Anti-fun as said above (and a good bit of why I quit MtG). That style isn't just that the mana cost is one too low (though such a thing can enable or disable the style in a given set) it's that you're denying agency to your opponent. Similarly with LoL, some of the characters you mention have hard CC or insta-kill move sets if given a tiny bit of help/slack from ally/opponent team. They don't outplay the opponent face to face, they just kill you dead without interaction.
Spoiler:
Interesting take, I have played both games and I can't help but wonder why you came to these conclusions.
So you have an understanding of my experience and know I'm not talking out of my ass... Full disclosure:
I started playing MTG in the original release, Beta printing in 1993(?) when I bought some card packs from my local movie rental/geekshop/video game rental store, and ended when they introduced planeswalkers. I felt the game was getting too.... muddied for my more classical tastes. I have a fair bit of tournament play under my belt at the local FLGS and regionally but never went beyond that because it didn't interest me. I played a variety of decks, control, leech, sliver, myr, burn, destruction, DT etc.. I introduced my wife to MTG in 2017 and we play a fair bit amongst our small group of MTG players. She plays exclusively deathtouch (dont ask why, she hates spiders and snakes but loves them all of a sudden in magic). I'm not sure what the current meta is, and a quick google leaves me boggled on the casting costs of some of these cards... way undercosted for what they do. It seems like speed magic instead of strategy.
To address your point on magic:
In MTG control decks have usually been pretty strong. As have a half dozen other "OP" decks. With the exception of a VERY scant few decks that could reliably pull off T1 victories (looking at you artifact cheese) none of these are impossible to outplay. If you find yourself losing to the same deck construction over and over then the problem is you. Remember to old saying about the definition of insanity? Think that. Control decks are no different. They don't prevent you from playing the game at all, they prevent you from playing the way you intended when you constructed the deck. Its true for both casual and competitive. There are only so many legal cards in any given format, and of those cards there are only so many combinations, decks, and metas to prepare for. You're allowed a sideboard. There is literally no reason for you to be locked out of playing except for your own limited ability to prepare.
To address your point on LoL:
I play LoL and have been for years. I have played competitive but I don't enjoy the seasonal elo grind so I stopped. Again, for fun. I main support lockdown characters and tank cc gankers like Blitzcrank, Nautilus, and Lux. In all of my years of playing, on a level playing field there has never been characters that "kill you dead without interaction". Ever. Ever. You're either dying to your poor placement, your team's poor inability to counter, or a really good gank. Unassisted in some way (either with a gold advantage or number of players in the engagement), there are NO characters that can one shot you. There are no characters that can 1v1 CC and kill you before the CC wears off. If either of these things are true, the opponent is overfed, stacking either their items, ability buffs, or character buffs. It just doesn't happen. The game is literally designed to prevent just that.
This has been my experience in both of these games. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. Your opinion matters to me, even in this toxic wasteland hobby we share.
That said, onto the 40k stuff!
Anti-fun in 40K is usually giving your opponent a lack of options (like having countering strats), giving a no-good-odds scenario (like having an obviously undercosted list), or a gimmick that just isn't interactive (shooting more than a quarter of a list off the board in top of T1). Sure, you can get an easy consistent win by playing the best list against unprepared opponents. There's a phrase for that. Idk why it seems like I'm in the minority for enjoying surmountable challenges.
In 40K there doesn't need to be that level of imbalance to make some armies/units just hopeless against others and thus unfun. That's on GW. A list with poor synergy, lack of win condition, exposed weaknesses are all on the player. Poor placement, risks taken, strats overlooked is all on player.
Spoiler:
Largely agree. In a VAST majority of cases, the people at the table are local flgs players. They aren't tourney titans. Anti-fun is going to be playing a casual friendly list against a tryhard list. It's frustrating. You don't always (especially now) get to play who you want, you play who shows up. If that isnt the case for you, I'm happy for and jealous of you. Playing against an undercosted FOTM list as a friendly player kill off the drive to play again. I chose necrons and thousand sons before either of them got updates, and despite their weakness in all of 7th and most of 8th I still enjoyed playing them.
GW does a TERRIBLE job at game balance and always has. Period. This is not up for debate. It's not because the core rules are bad; they are gimmicky at best, poorly worded at worst, and easily modified for local friendly or tournament play, which is what the majority of 40k players participate in. GW doesn't sell a tabletop wargame. They sell models. The rules for said models are incidental. On a level playing field, the army with the latest codex and the latest models is always going to be better than the armies that haven't received those benefits. Which is a shame, the focus should be on the rules first to keep players engaged. The proof is in the pudding.
Simply look at the difference in the codex releases. Necrons and Space Marines. In a vacuum, the Necron codex is a work of art. Beautiful new models, cool, fluffy rules changes in some places, extremely questionable changes in others, but all in all fairly balanced against themselves. Then compare it to the Space Marines codex. Just the difference in the percentage of core units compared between books is glaring. Without touching on any of the other power grabs they got just this one difference tells you what you need to know. GW wants to sell Space Marines, they want you playing Space Marines so you are buying all the new Primaris models.
Now look at the next few sets of codices. Deathwatch (Space Marines), Blood Angels (Space Marines), Death Guard (Chaos Space Marines), Dark Eldar (who need it for sure, them getting slashed down from what they were to what they are is a damn shame. See you evil space cowboy), Dark Angels (Space Marines). Two out of SIX(!) codexes are codexes that needed new rules to bring them up to snuff and desperately need(ed) new models. The others are all Space Marines (which have been getting new models every few months for years) and Death Guard (which just had a rework last edition). Not Tau (which needs rules updates to bring them in line with 9th and are extremely disadvantaged in the 2w meta), Nids (Which are borderline unplayable in all but the most gimmicky lists), Chaos Space Marines any flavor but DG (DEAR GOD FIX EMPERORS CHILDREN ALREADY! LUCIOUS THE ETERNAL IS THE WORST CHARACTER IN THE GAME!) or Eldar (Which were a powerhouse for several editions but havent gotten the updating ruleswise they need to be competitivie, or models for a lot of their 20 year old lineup). There's more, but I think you see the point.
Furthermore, look at the price increases. In the worst global economic, financial, and health crisis in our lives GW raised prices across the board. They created the indomitus boxset and the new versions of the start collecting boxes and made it damn near not worth the savings (in the case of the battleboxes), and artificially created inflated rarity. That said, Indom was worth it, and they did screw over scalpers pretty hard; so... point for them. What was terrible was how they treated their customer base throughout that whole ordeal. Just... total neglect. No communication at all, just glad handing.
At the end of the day, GW doesn't care about the rules or the casual player. They care about creating hype for new models, turning that hype into sales, and turning those sales into tournament winning lists that cause casual players to want to own the lists that win. They are a business. Their business isn't wargaming, their business is sales. Remember the GW exec who said the best part of 40k was buying the models? New GeeDubs™ is no different.
Finally, I just want to say that if you're lucky enough to exist in a bubble where youre army is doing well in your local group, don't discount the struggles other players are having. Don't ignore their want for updated sculpts or rules to fill out the fantasy they have for their army. Just because you don't agree doesn't automatically mean they're wrong for wanting them. They aren't doing as well as you are for whatever reason, and a little compassion and understanding goes a long way for a frustrated player. Be excellent to each other.
Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
So because i dared to play a wraith host for the enterity of 8th edition, i should be lumped in with the Ynnari/Flyers abusers?
The codex has always had a competitive build but its always been a spammy, non fluffy list.
Most aspect warriors have been in the gutter ever since i started playing the game (reapers, spears and crimson hunter exarchs being the exception, and spammed).
The eldar codex hasnt had any internal balance since ive been playing the game, its always spam something specific to try and win (right now its starcannons). This is boring to play, i wish we had as much list diversity as Marines get so we could actually play fluffy lists instead of rely on being elvish salamanders.
The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list to which I applied random limitations according to my head-canon? Total TFGWAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*
*Hyperbole
see, ive never actually seen that happen except from internet tough guys. The most i've seen IRL is something akin to : "your army is pretty strong, can you play it a bit nerfed/lower power please"
Sgt. Cortez wrote: With the argument "but there's 3rd Party minis for you" even Squat - players should be happy right now. Which shows how worthless it is.
Squats haven't even been in the fluff for YEARS, and literally nobody is going to care if someone brings a Counts As army using Squats. Nothing here proves any point.
Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
So because i dared to play a wraith host for the enterity of 8th edition, i should be lumped in with the Ynnari/Flyers abusers?
The codex has always had a competitive build but its always been a spammy, non fluffy list.
Most aspect warriors have been in the gutter ever since i started playing the game (reapers, spears and crimson hunter exarchs being the exception, and spammed).
The eldar codex hasnt had any internal balance since ive been playing the game, its always spam something specific to try and win (right now its starcannons). This is boring to play, i wish we had as much list diversity as Marines get so we could actually play fluffy lists instead of rely on being elvish salamanders.
The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list to which I applied random limitations according to my head-canon? Total TFGWAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*
*Hyperbole
see, ive never actually seen that happen except from internet tough guys. The most i've seen IRL is something akin to : "your army is pretty strong, can you play it a bit nerfed/lower power please"
Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
if fixing my army means running 6 planes, then yes, i'll tell my opponents that i'm looking for a more casual-level game.
Not everyone enjoys playing with/against top tier armies.
The good thing is that my friends have the same view of the game so i feel absolutely no shame to ask them that.
EDIT:
Its the same as telling your playgroup what type of game you're looking to have when setting up a DnD game : Combat oriented or Roleplay oriented
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
and then forget what you just imagined and blame all the other players instead of GW.
Right, if gw did their jobs right then you would never have to "have a conversation" before a game. But until they do, I'm fine with doing that. Curbstomping someone is no more enjoyable than being curbstomped.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
and then forget what you just imagined and blame all the other players instead of GW.
Right, if gw did their jobs right then you would never have to "have a conversation" before a game. But until they do, I'm fine with doing that. Curbstomping someone is no more enjoyable than being curbstomped.
Which makes you part of the problem quite frankly. The only way GW will listen is via emails AND voting with your wallet, not one or the other. If you keep up making those purchases and still having the conversation, GW assumes no wrong doing.
Not only does GW assume no wrong doing, they assume they're doing it right because players are constantly chasing the current meta units (or avoiding the meta units) and they're selling more.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
and then forget what you just imagined and blame all the other players instead of GW.
Right, if gw did their jobs right then you would never have to "have a conversation" before a game. But until they do, I'm fine with doing that. Curbstomping someone is no more enjoyable than being curbstomped.
Which makes you part of the problem quite frankly. The only way GW will listen is via emails AND voting with your wallet, not one or the other. If you keep up making those purchases and still having the conversation, GW assumes no wrong doing.
I never said I was going to "BUY MOAR MODELS" in order to adjust my lists to be less effective. I've been playing for 20 years, I already have plenty of weaker units I can slot in. Adjusting your list so that you and your opponent have more fun doesn't help gw. The entire point of playing the game is having fun. If you're not doing that, there's no reason to play it, whether it helps gw or not.
Which makes you part of the problem quite frankly. The only way GW will listen is via emails AND voting with your wallet, not one or the other. If you keep up making those purchases and still having the conversation, GW assumes no wrong doing.
we can have that discussion while not supporting GW. I havnt bought anything from GW in months, yet i have a couple new armies.... There are alternative options than buying from GW.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
That'd pretty much begin & end with Chess & Go.
Lolno. When I play Infinity I don't have to have a conversation with my opponent about what units they're allowed to bring or not; I'm confident that pretty much no matter what we bring, the game will be decided by who plays better. Once you start looking outside of the GW bubble you realize their balance is bad. Really really bad.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
That'd pretty much begin & end with Chess & Go.
Lolno. When I play Infinity I don't have to have a conversation with my opponent about what units they're allowed to bring or not; I'm confident that pretty much no matter what we bring, the game will be decided by who plays better. Once you start looking outside of the GW bubble you realize their balance is bad. Really really bad.
with infinity as long as both players have the same skill level, the game isnt decided. The fact that CB has a mathematical approach to costing their units gives them a really good base framework for balance.
I've heard GW does use a mathematical system, although I also heard that they used the same spreadsheet for Bloodbowl as they did Necromunda.
So I hope it's not true, and if it is that probably explains the issue.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
The only answer to marines is to not play against them. Xenos and chaos players should just say no to marine matchups and let them play with other marines.
That comes with two problems. First I don't think harli or demon players have problems with playing any marine army, including the tier 1 ones, and the second being the fact that unlike xeno codex, marines with their multiple subfactions actualy have different armies to play with. A marine vs marine games doesn't have to, and more often then not isn't a mirror. An ork vs ork game is a game of two clone armies.
I never said I was going to "BUY MOAR MODELS" in order to adjust my lists to be less effective. I've been playing for 20 years, I already have plenty of weaker units I can slot in. Adjusting your list so that you and your opponent have more fun doesn't help gw. The entire point of playing the game is having fun. If you're not doing that, there's no reason to play it, whether it helps gw or not.
As someone who lives shorter then you collect models, I would like to point out, that the idea of balance fun games being achived after you collected for 20 years, or even 10 years is a bit mind blowing. Specialy considering how long an avarge w40k player plays the game.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
The only answer to marines is to not play against them. Xenos and chaos players should just say no to marine matchups and let them play with other marines.
That comes with two problems. First I don't think harli or demon players have problems with playing any marine army, including the tier 1 ones, and the second being the fact that unlike xeno codex, marines with their multiple subfactions actualy have different armies to play with. A marine vs marine games doesn't have to, and more often then not isn't a mirror. An ork vs ork game is a game of two clone armies.
I never said I was going to "BUY MOAR MODELS" in order to adjust my lists to be less effective. I've been playing for 20 years, I already have plenty of weaker units I can slot in. Adjusting your list so that you and your opponent have more fun doesn't help gw. The entire point of playing the game is having fun. If you're not doing that, there's no reason to play it, whether it helps gw or not.
As someone who lives shorter then you collect models, I would like to point out, that the idea of balance fun games being achived after you collected for 20 years, or even 10 years is a bit mind blowing. Specialy considering how long an avarge w40k player plays the game.
Cool, so there's no problem then. Marine players should be overjoyed to be only playing against other marines - it's so varied and fun.
It is a little odd that you see so many marine players specifically requesting they play against non-marine opponents, but I am glad to hear the confirmation that it's unnecessary to bother indulging them and they love just playing each other.
Also, if you think you have to wait 20 years to end up with a collection of models that are now sub-optimal or terrible for the current meta, then...well I dunno, you must just not pay very much attention, because I KNOW you've noticed and get weird, fetishistic levels of glee over some particular factions' models that were once overpowered now being terrible.
It is extremely unusual for any model collection to stay competitively optimized for more than 6 months to 1 year in 40k. The only exceptions that I can recall would be if your collection was Mechanized Wave Serpent Eldar starting in sixth edition, or razorback-heavy space marines starting in like 4th or 5th.
Well from the looks of it that is what is happening. People at different levels play different marine lists, with classic marines with just primaris. And those that have good xeno lists play their lists.
Maybe it is different in western countries where people are rich enough to buy "that' one salamander or white scar list and you get 20 people playing it in like a month or two after the edition comes out.
I guess it is a good side of me playing in a place, where all players are evil and care about their own fun. Somehow it ends with people playing different lists and really liking 9th ed. It is sad that those casual players in other countries, get punished for somehow falling in to the trap of being able to afford the best list and everything playing that one the best list. Although that does rise a question, why aren't they playing demons or harlis, they are much better armies, specialy vs mariens that I am told everyone seems to play at every level.
Also, if you think you have to wait 20 years to end up with a collection of models that are now sub-optimal or terrible for the current meta, then...well I dunno, you must just not pay very much attention, because I KNOW you've noticed and get weird, fetishistic levels of glee over some particular factions' models that were once overpowered now being terrible.
Oh I think the 2.0 sm books or rather the reaction to them from non marine players opened my eyes like few things in my life. Till that book came out, I really thought that I my enviroment was full of bad people, playing w40k the wrong way, and that people in other places were playing the game the right way, and that there the good and powerful stuff wasn't used. Then I saw eldar players lose their minds when IH had a 5% higher win rate then best eldar lists win rates in 8th ed, and I do have to agree it was and still is ton of fun to read about, how xeno armies are the neglected one. Or how marines were always OP, specialy when the top armies being non marine ones. As I said opened my eyes to some cultural differences, which easily went over my head for years. But as I said, I ain't a smart person. It took me 2 years to understand that when people say space mariens, they don't count GK. Then when PA came out they started to count GK in the marine camp too, but now they stoped counting them as sm again.
It is extremely unusual for any model collection to stay competitively optimized for more than 6 months to 1 year in 40k.
I am not really understanding this argument. From what I understand armies like eldar had an OP, as in better then most of the field build or even builds, every edition or almost every edition of the game. While other armies may never had one or had one for a few months at the end of an edition. Plus there is non optimised power problem. I never played vs a fully optimised tournament eldar army. Mostly because people couldn't afford it here. But I did play against regular eldar and Inari armies. And their "unoptimised" vs my GK unopitmised wasn't even something I would call a game. It is like a 15 year old having a bout with a 11 year old in wrestling.
Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.
The only answer to marines is to not play against them. Xenos and chaos players should just say no to marine matchups and let them play with other marines.
That comes with two problems. First I don't think harli or demon players have problems with playing any marine army, including the tier 1 ones, and the second being the fact that unlike xeno codex, marines with their multiple subfactions actualy have different armies to play with. A marine vs marine games doesn't have to, and more often then not isn't a mirror. An ork vs ork game is a game of two clone armies.
I don't know where you get the idea that every ork army is the same, theyre one of the armies with the most list variety.
And obviously when people say "Xenos and Chaos are bad", they mean the ones that arent functional right now
I never said I was going to "BUY MOAR MODELS" in order to adjust my lists to be less effective. I've been playing for 20 years, I already have plenty of weaker units I can slot in. Adjusting your list so that you and your opponent have more fun doesn't help gw. The entire point of playing the game is having fun. If you're not doing that, there's no reason to play it, whether it helps gw or not.
As someone who lives shorter then you collect models, I would like to point out, that the idea of balance fun games being achived after you collected for 20 years, or even 10 years is a bit mind blowing. Specialy considering how long an avarge w40k player plays the game.
You don't even need to purchase new models, just run the ones you have as count-as. It can be as simple as saying "my combi-flamers are actually combi-meltas" or saying "My bladeguards are actually Terminators with XYZ".
I've been collecting my Blood Angels for almost a decade now, and I've had essentially the same models for the last 6 years.
I don't chase the meta, I buy what I enjoy.
Hence I don't have a massive collection to draw from depending on whether my opponents want to be playing beardy games or not.
It's an argument that doesn't work, and is tone-deaf at best and very self-centered at worst.
Karol wrote: Well from the looks of it that is what is happening. People at different levels play different marine lists, with classic marines with just primaris. And those that have good xeno lists play their lists.
Maybe it is different in western countries where people are rich enough to buy "that' one salamander or white scar list and you get 20 people playing it in like a month or two after the edition comes out.
I guess it is a good side of me playing in a place, where all players are evil and care about their own fun. Somehow it ends with people playing different lists and really liking 9th ed. It is sad that those casual players in other countries, get punished for somehow falling in to the trap of being able to afford the best list and everything playing that one the best list. Although that does rise a question, why aren't they playing demons or harlis, they are much better armies, specialy vs mariens that I am told everyone seems to play at every level.
They don't play Harlies or Demons because these aren't armies that interest them i'd guess. I don't chose my armies by their winrate in tournaments, i chose them because their fluff is cool and their models look nice.
And you don't need to be rich to say "this squad of terminators are actually Eradicators" and "these Marneus bodyguards are actually Bladeguard"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I've been collecting my Blood Angels for almost a decade now, and I've had essentially the same models for the last 6 years.
I don't chase the meta, I buy what I enjoy.
Hence I don't have a massive collection to draw from depending on whether my opponents want to be playing beardy games or not.
It's an argument that doesn't work, and is tone-deaf at best and very self-centered at worst.
I don't know where you get the idea that every ork army is the same, theyre one of the armies with the most list variety.
And obviously when people say "Xenos and Chaos are bad", they mean the ones that arent functional right now
Because they are everyone is playing the same or almost the same goff builds. Same with harlis etc
Also wait a minute, why are marines being described as one faction in every argument telling that they are too OP. But eldar are suddenly somehow split.
If a DA or IF players has to accept the argument that his army requires nerfs, because white scars or ultramarines are really good. Then an craftworld eldar or Inari player has nothing to whine about, when harlis are the army with win % high up in the stratosphere untouched by nerfs or a possible soon codex change or CA release.
And you don't need to be rich to say "this squad of terminators are actually Eradicators" and "these Marneus bodyguards are actually Bladeguard"
Well good for you, if you play in a place where someone would let you do that.
You don't even need to purchase new models, just run the ones you have as count-as. It can be as simple as saying "my combi-flamers are actually combi-meltas" or saying "My bladeguards are actually Terminators with XYZ".
Good luck with people allowing you to count as powerful models. They maybe will let you count as scounts, because scouts suck now. Or maybe if you are friends with people. But if you are just a random player or someone like me who has to go to another town to play, the chance for me suddenly going guys let me count as my GK termintor army as heavy intercessors and eradictors is zero. Even more so if people just don't like you, for what ever reasons.
I don't know where you get the idea that every ork army is the same, theyre one of the armies with the most list variety.
And obviously when people say "Xenos and Chaos are bad", they mean the ones that arent functional right now
Because they are everyone is playing the same or almost the same goff builds. Same with harlis etc
Goffs boys is one of many possible builds for orks, just because its the current top tier one doesnt mean its the only one.
Harlies basically don't have a choice in what they run since the codex has so little unit options.
Also wait a minute, why are marines being described as one faction in every argument telling that they are too OP. But eldar are suddenly somehow split.
If a DA or IF players has to accept the argument that his army requires nerfs, because white scars or ultramarines are really good. Then an craftworld eldar or Inari player has nothing to whine about, when harlis are the army with win % high up in the stratosphere untouched by nerfs or a possible soon codex change or CA release.
Because marines are part of Codex:Space marines and Eldar are part of Codex: Craftworld, Codex: Drukhari and Codex: Harlequins.
And you don't need to be rich to say "this squad of terminators are actually Eradicators" and "these Marneus bodyguards are actually Bladeguard"
Well good for you, if you play in a place where someone would let you do that.
You don't even need to purchase new models, just run the ones you have as count-as. It can be as simple as saying "my combi-flamers are actually combi-meltas" or saying "My bladeguards are actually Terminators with XYZ".
Good luck with people allowing you to count as powerful models. They maybe will let you count as scounts, because scouts suck now. Or maybe if you are friends with people. But if you are just a random player or someone like me who has to go to another town to play, the chance for me suddenly going guys let me count as my GK termintor army as heavy intercessors and eradictors is zero. Even more so if people just don't like you, for what ever reasons.
I've done it in the past many times when contemplating wether i want to buy certain models or not, and i've let many of my opponents do it. (I once played a half skitarii, half sister army because the guy was starting sisters and he didnt know what he wanted to play). Most people i know would 100% allow ANY count-as. Heck, we've even played with only bases some times or even paper cutouts of the models we were testing.
To be fair, we don't play with winning as the sole goal, 40k is a way to relax between friends and talk.
Oh I think the 2.0 sm books or rather the reaction to them from non marine players opened my eyes like few things in my life. Till that book came out, I really thought that I my enviroment was full of bad people, playing w40k the wrong way, and that people in other places were playing the game the right way, and that there the good and powerful stuff wasn't used. Then I saw eldar players lose their minds when IH had a 5% higher win rate then best eldar lists win rates in 8th ed, and I do have to agree it was and still is ton of fun to read about, how xeno armies are the neglected one. Or how marines were always OP, specialy when the top armies being non marine ones. As I said opened my eyes to some cultural differences, which easily went over my head for years. But as I said, I ain't a smart person. It took me 2 years to understand that when people say space mariens, they don't count GK. Then when PA came out they started to count GK in the marine camp too, but now they stoped counting them as sm again.
Karol, *you* are the bad person. When your army is underpowered you don't criticize the rule writers, you criticize the people who beat you; this a bootlicker/slave mentality. You don't deserve wins just for existing.
I am not really understanding this argument. From what I understand armies like eldar had an OP, as in better then most of the field build or even builds, every edition or almost every edition of the game. While other armies may never had one or had one for a few months at the end of an edition. Plus there is non optimised power problem. I never played vs a fully optimised tournament eldar army. Mostly because people couldn't afford it here. But I did play against regular eldar and Inari armies. And their "unoptimised" vs my GK unopitmised wasn't even something I would call a game. It is like a 15 year old having a bout with a 11 year old in wrestling.
What you understand about Eldar is wrong. At times Eldar had very powerful builds. At times SW, or IG, or Tau, had very powerful lists.
Also, if your "unoptimized" GK list was losing against "unoptimized" Eldar lists, the fault is not the codices - the lack of optimization means that that difference is erased. This is different from the current Astartes builds, where unoptimized builds are still extremely powerful. Instead, if you were losing a lot when playing unoptimized lists vs. unoptimized lists, it means that *you were much worse at the game than your opponents*, and therefore it was right that you lost more often.
Imagine blaming a Grey Knights player for losing instead of the garbage codex they were given compared to Eldar. That's fething hilarious. Here's your spoiler, tiger: certain non-optimized armies are still significantly better than other armies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine blaming a Grey Knights player for losing instead of the garbage codex they were given compared to Eldar. That's fething hilarious. Here's your spoiler, tiger: certain non-optimized armies are still significantly better than other armies.
Which is what he said when he said the space marine codex can field unoptimized lists and still overperform....
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine blaming a Grey Knights player for losing instead of the garbage codex they were given compared to Eldar. That's fething hilarious. Here's your spoiler, tiger: certain non-optimized armies are still significantly better than other armies.
Which is what he said when he said the space marine codex can field unoptimized lists and still overperform....
You missed the point saying that the Grey Knights player, Karol, was to blame vs even unoptimized Eldar, which isn't even close to remotely true.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine blaming a Grey Knights player for losing instead of the garbage codex they were given compared to Eldar. That's fething hilarious. Here's your spoiler, tiger: certain non-optimized armies are still significantly better than other armies.
Which is what he said when he said the space marine codex can field unoptimized lists and still overperform....
You missed the point saying that the Grey Knights player, Karol, was to blame vs even unoptimized Eldar, which isn't even close to remotely true.
it is somewhat true IMO. Player skill does have a big say in the outcome of a game and an unoptimized eldar list can be even more trash than GK at their lowest during 8th.
A biel-tan aspect warrior list would probably get wrecked by karol's terminator heavy GK list.
You missed the point saying that the Grey Knights player, Karol, was to blame vs even unoptimized Eldar, which isn't even close to remotely true.
Completely depends on the list, and I called the situation out as different from the current Astartes codex. You can have a codex which has the best-in-meta-build, but without optimization is absolute trash. Conversely, it's possible to have a codex where all the options are decent, but doesn't have a tournament-winning setup.
If you don't understand even that basic level of nuance you probably aren't too good at wargames.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine blaming a Grey Knights player for losing instead of the garbage codex they were given compared to Eldar. That's fething hilarious. Here's your spoiler, tiger: certain non-optimized armies are still significantly better than other armies.
Which is what he said when he said the space marine codex can field unoptimized lists and still overperform....
You missed the point saying that the Grey Knights player, Karol, was to blame vs even unoptimized Eldar, which isn't even close to remotely true.
it is somewhat true IMO. Player skill does have a big say in the outcome of a game and an unoptimized eldar list can be even more trash than GK at their lowest during 8th.
A biel-tan aspect warrior list would probably get wrecked by karol's terminator heavy GK list.
Absolutely not LOL. Did you already forget how many point per wound GK Terminators were paying for? Absolutely Glass and little of the Cannon.
Player Skill only goes so far, otherwise we could just roll over and say 7th wasn't bad either.
You missed the point saying that the Grey Knights player, Karol, was to blame vs even unoptimized Eldar, which isn't even close to remotely true.
Completely depends on the list, and I called the situation out as different from the current Astartes codex. You can have a codex which has the best-in-meta-build, but without optimization is absolute trash. Conversely, it's possible to have a codex where all the options are decent, but doesn't have a tournament-winning setup.
If you don't understand even that basic level of nuance you probably aren't too good at wargames.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
Nope! Definitely not a fact.
MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
Nope! Definitely not a fact.
MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
I don't get your argument, slayer.
It seems clear to me that we all know GW is to blame for shoddy balance. What we are saying is that considering the existence of poor balance is out of our hands, we can reach compromises with our opponents (outside tournaments) concerning what type of game we want to play.
Asking someone to play a more casual list isnt putting the blame on GW, its trying to reach a point where both parties are satisfied with the game that they are about to sink 2-3 hours in.
The opponent is free to say no and its up to both players to reach an understanding. If i want a more casual game because im playing Gk with a premade army that i bought in one shot, asking my opponent to maybe not run a top tier list is fine. If he refuses, i can in return ask if he would allow me to use count-as or proxies for more powerful models (using regular termies as paladins for example). If my opponent refuses that then it becomes a person problem instead of a GW problem because it makes it clear that the person only wants to win with the op list.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
Orkz in 7th were arguably the worst codex in the entire game. Eldar, Tau and SM were UN-arguably the best. I beat them several times to win tournaments with my orkz in 8-20 man tournaments in 7th. So player skill can absolutely be a factor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
Nah. I have yet to see evidence than an unoptimized GK's list is necessarily worse than an unoptimized CE list for a given edition. Moreover, even if it was, that isn't justification for Astartes being powerful now, and Eldar players weren't in denial about the power of their codex at the time.
So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Wow, the hypocrisy of some people, not lumpung gk in with marines before they got the 2.0dex buffs, then lumping them in when they got the 2.0dex buffs in PA, and then not lumping them in again when marines got their wounds doubled for fething free and GK didnt.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Definitely. Guard, Talons, AdMech, even SoB though they're my least favorite faction in the game - they could all use some love compared to Astartes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, the hypocrisy of some people, not lumpung gk in with marines before they got the 2.0dex buffs, then lumping them in when they got the 2.0dex buffs in PA, and then not lumping them in again when marines got their wounds doubled for fething free and GK didnt.
How hypocritical.
Doesn't seem so to me, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
Eldar players weren't in denial about the power of their codex at the time.
I don't know about that. It's been my experience that the current outlier players tend to spend a lot of time deflecting and throwing out whataboutisms.
Eldar players regularly trotted out the tired old arguments about them being a frail race with hyper specialized weaponry requiring high level play from them (despite the lists always being Jetbikes, Wave Serpents, Councils etc. Ie. Very resilient and effective against all targets.)
Now that they've fallen we see the acknowledgment and Marine players have taken their place discounting the disparity. We've even seen threads complaining about the ubiquitous whining as if it came from nowhere and not in reaction to the absurd books released. (As one of the worst back at the beginning I acknowledge it got to be a bit much but acting like it was negativity for it's own sake is equally wrong)
After Marines fall and Tau or Dark Eldar reign supreme we'll see Marine players acknowledge this era the way the post Scatbike Eldar players did and the cycle will continue.
Eldarain wrote: Eldar players regularly trotted out the tired old arguments about them being a frail race with hyper specialized weaponry requiring high level play from them (despite the lists always being Jetbikes, Wave Serpents, Councils etc. Ie. Very resilient and effective against all targets.)
That's not really a denial that their faction is overpowered, though, they're just saying it has a high skill ceiling (which may or may not be true). But if you assume that their skill ceiling is higher than other factions, and that competitive players will push to the ceiling of their faction, then it's a tacit admission that Eldar are the most powerful faction.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
Eldar players weren't in denial about the power of their codex at the time.
I don't know about that. It's been my experience that the current outlier players tend to spend a lot of time deflecting and throwing out whataboutisms.
Eldar players regularly trotted out the tired old arguments about them being a frail race with hyper specialized weaponry requiring high level play from them (despite the lists always being Jetbikes, Wave Serpents, Councils etc. Ie. Very resilient and effective against all targets.)
Now that they've fallen we see the acknowledgment and Marine players have taken their place discounting the disparity. We've even seen threads complaining about the ubiquitous whining as if it came from nowhere and not in reaction to the absurd books released. (As one of the worst back at the beginning I acknowledge it got to be a bit much but acting like it was negativity for it's own sake is equally wrong)
After Marines fall and Tau or Dark Eldar reign supreme we'll see Marine players acknowledge this era the way the post Scatbike Eldar players did and the cycle will continue.
..Or, you know, they'll claim that it was all "Just Gimmicks" or point to the countermeta factions with like 1% playrate and 60% wr and go "marines weren't even the REAL strongest army (some months in the two years of continuous dominance)"
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, the hypocrisy of some people, not lumpung gk in with marines before they got the 2.0dex buffs, then lumping them in when they got the 2.0dex buffs in PA, and then not lumping them in again when marines got their wounds doubled for fething free and GK didnt.
How hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical. It is however idiotic. Someone who ever lumped GK in with general marines is dumb.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
Eldar players weren't in denial about the power of their codex at the time.
I don't know about that. It's been my experience that the current outlier players tend to spend a lot of time deflecting and throwing out whataboutisms.
Eldar players regularly trotted out the tired old arguments about them being a frail race with hyper specialized weaponry requiring high level play from them (despite the lists always being Jetbikes, Wave Serpents, Councils etc. Ie. Very resilient and effective against all targets.)
Now that they've fallen we see the acknowledgment and Marine players have taken their place discounting the disparity. We've even seen threads complaining about the ubiquitous whining as if it came from nowhere and not in reaction to the absurd books released. (As one of the worst back at the beginning I acknowledge it got to be a bit much but acting like it was negativity for it's own sake is equally wrong)
After Marines fall and Tau or Dark Eldar reign supreme we'll see Marine players acknowledge this era the way the post Scatbike Eldar players did and the cycle will continue.
..Or, you know, they'll claim that it was all "Just Gimmicks" or point to the countermeta factions with like 1% playrate and 60% wr and go "marines weren't even the REAL strongest army (some months in the two years of continuous dominance)"
They're not the real strongest army right now. Harlequins are.
It really isn't different. Certain codices are just trash no matter how much "muh player skill" you wanna try to blame it on instead of Dear Leader GW. Unoptimized Grey Knights were trash vs everyone else barring maybe unoptimized Genestealer Cults, and that's just a fact.
Nope! Definitely not a fact.
MAN the denial/cope is real. GW could release a Cultist at 3 points with every model having a D2 Assault Cannon for free, and we'd still have people like you with their heads in the sand.
I don't get your argument, slayer.
It seems clear to me that we all know GW is to blame for shoddy balance. What we are saying is that considering the existence of poor balance is out of our hands, we can reach compromises with our opponents (outside tournaments) concerning what type of game we want to play.
Asking someone to play a more casual list isnt putting the blame on GW, its trying to reach a point where both parties are satisfied with the game that they are about to sink 2-3 hours in.
The opponent is free to say no and its up to both players to reach an understanding. If i want a more casual game because im playing Gk with a premade army that i bought in one shot, asking my opponent to maybe not run a top tier list is fine. If he refuses, i can in return ask if he would allow me to use count-as or proxies for more powerful models (using regular termies as paladins for example). If my opponent refuses that then it becomes a person problem instead of a GW problem because it makes it clear that the person only wants to win with the op list.
this is where the breakdown happens. compromise is a concept foreign to some people. you could say entitled, you could say spoiled, but it really is both. why should the world give you everything? why should x beat y when all else is equal? It's really easy to say no to a game, but if you put a little effort in working with someone, you'll have more and fun games.
Karol is fun to pick on, but they are a product of their fethed up meta. Their perspective would be very different if they were introduced to the game in a chill and permissive environment. Hell it would've been really unfun to start the game in 8th with one of the weakest factions in a meta where OP eldar is course du jour. But that's no excuse for how they seem to paint all eldar players with the same brush.
I really hope the other factions get more love. for the health of the community and game as a whole.
They're not the real strongest army right now. Harlequins are.
They have an extremely high performance floor.
go on
I mean that's what I have to say, and it's why Astartes are still egregious even though they might not be literally the most powerful faction. They receive the lions share of releases, and are powerful in a way that makes it nearly impossible to play "casual" games of them. Meanwhile, Harlequins are probably the most bare-bones faction in the game.
Harlequins need some points tweaks. Astartes are emblematic of what's wrong with GW's business model, and the title of this thread.
Harlies shouldn't even be a standalone army to begin with but here we are anyway. But having never played against them, SM were a problem even in casual play because their base power was incredibly high whereas harlies apparently weren't like that.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Admech has been seeing some pretty major releases regularly since they were dropped. Almost keeping pace with Marines.
Guard are due for an update IMHO, but Guard also had the deepest forgeworld selection up until FW starting axing those models and then became just about producing Horus Heresy.
They're not the real strongest army right now. Harlequins are.
its weird how like, let's see...three percent of the competitive playerbase is choosing to go with "The Strongest Army."
Do competitive players hate winning, I wonder?
There hasn't been a big enough tournament. Currently, when they do go out, the very top competitive players are mostly refining and testing. With all the big big tournies on lockdown, there's less reason to go with what is appearing to be the top top meta, or going with a list that is antimeta.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Admech has been seeing some pretty major releases regularly since they were dropped. Almost keeping pace with Marines.
Guard are due for an update IMHO, but Guard also had the deepest forgeworld selection up until FW starting axing those models and then became just about producing Horus Heresy.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
I'm not looking for a fight now, and I don't really know the "stats", but exactly how is Admech almost keeping pace with SM?
Hasn't Admech gotten a tank, dogs, copter and their jump infantry? That's four units. I've probably missed one, so say five.
How many has SM gotten the past two years?
The current Astartes and their supplements are problematic for the game because they will never truly be able to balance them properly because the books are fundamentally bad design. (and design and balance are interlinked yet separate concepts!)
I hate to trot this out, but I used to work in the games industry, I used to be a games designer. Games have been my passion for my entire life (which is why I don't work in the industry anymore as it's a great way to kill your passion and give you mental breakdowns!) and I would like to think I have a good grasp on the core concepts of designing games, how to balance them in terms of internal power levels but also so that they can be enjoyable and interesting to play etc.
The way Marines are set out currently is just so obviously a bad idea it boggles the mind. They get about 50% more than anyone else ruleswise but pay nothing for these bonuses. Games are built on choices and decisions, with strengths being countered by drawbacks. Just look at the stupid amounts of stacked bonuses a chapter like BA gets and then see if they pay any extra points for these incredibly powerful mechanics. Of course they don't, but they also never will, or in the process of making them pay extra points, GW will cause issues for other chapters.
I mean it's just such a fundamental big No-No to do. Go and look at any other system or videogame and you see strengths and drawbacks. Species Traits in Stellaris based off of a Points and Picks system, to stop you from just choosing nothing but OP traits. Powerful ranged attack heroes in Dota 2 having long turn rates so they can't endlessly kite people. Teutonic Knights in AOE2 have obscenely good stats and a large health pool, but they're slow as all hell and melee. Big weapons with extreme attack stats in the Souls games usually have high weight, drain lots of stamina and their size makes using them in tight spaces problematic. And so on.
The worst part is, this can't be solved by changing points around. Not just because of the example I gave earlier, but because Marines are getting everything stacked on top in easy ways to access and remain a fundamentally low skill floor low skill ceiling army, they will always be frustrating to play against. Something can be "balanced" and still be miserable to experience. To use Dota 2 as an example again: Goblin Techies and Naga Siren, even in periods where they had a sub 40% winrate in competitive games, were groaned at and booed by people whenever they were picked. It didn't matter that they weren't powerful, it was that they made the game a miserable and frustrating experience to watch and play. It doesn't matter if points increases make Marines un-viable in competitive environs. If I play a game vs BA and an Intercessor Sergeant is still more deadly in CC than basically every other armies powerful HQ choices then that's a bad, frustrating experience. It's like how Altaioc Flyers weren't ever really completely dominating the competitive meta at any point, or indeed any of the mass -1 subfactions were, but one Altaioc plane in a casual game was a miserable time for a Guard or Tau player and would negatively impact their experience of playing the game.
Bosskelot wrote: The current Astartes and their supplements are problematic for the game because they will never truly be able to balance them properly because the books are fundamentally bad design. (and design and balance are interlinked yet separate concepts!)
Marines are badly designed. They just have too many options. Which make it so if they are internaly balanced they will probably be either trash or always good. GW changes the core rules and faction rules all the time so the meta is always in a state of flux. If the marines are not bad and well balanced they can adapt better than any other faction and will be seen everywhere. If they are just too expensive/weak then they cant build lists strong enough even if they adapt. Even though marines have been nerfed in 9th compared to late 8th the core rules and missions drastically changed the way the game is being played. It didnt affect marines too bad since they just have so many options that are all rather good now. Tau is the opposite.
Marines can do lists with all models have 12+ inches of fly movement if there are lots of terrain and LOS blocks that prevent non flying infantry from moving around or shooting. If the terrain allows it they could be even faster and on bikes if people didnt play ruins. They can forward deploy the whole army, including multiple HQ options, if that is favorable under the missions. All walkers or all tanks is also possible. They could go all in on T4 2w 3+ or T4 3w 1/2+ or T5 3w 3+ depending on the meta. They can play with lots or zero psykers. Pure melee focused or almost pure ranged focus. They could do drop pod assault lists. The options are just too many.
The detachment system really plays to marines as well. With such a huge roster of units and the option to go for all elite or fast or heavy make it so if any of those categories becomes better in the meta for some reason they can really lean in to that. Many other armies are more limited by the rule of 3 but marines can take 3 different terminators or a handful of dreadnoughts.
Earlier editions models were more restricted in what they could do each turn as well so being good at everything wasnt always that good if you had to pay for it. But now with smaller tables and a focus on movement/combat marines can do it all. You have multiple ways to move up the table, can shoot effectively while doing so and then assault. No more staying still to shoot your heavy weapons or sacrificing bolter fire for assaulting. Every unit can do everything and marines can always choose the best one of multiple options best suited for the current environment.
I play marines and want a lot of datasheets and special rules removed so there are some things marines arent very good at. They should be good at everything but not right now where they are the best at many things just from their sheer amount of options. There should be less overly specialized units seeing play and more allround units on the tables. More tactical marines and assault marines, less eradicators and vanguard/SG.
They really need to expand the design space of other factions to give them the width of design marines have.
This would give a chance for more depth in the game as well, a lot of the issues over the years have been half done expansions with little thought to the game. Flyers and super heavy being the two main ones.
This miniature first above all else has even led the game to be quite bland if you look at it outside of fairly specific area GW has focus on.
I think that needs to change for ballance to even be a real possibility.
I don't disagree. 40k has a lot of elements that really shouldn't be here if you wanted to make a fun game.
Superheavies, particularly entire factions of them (Knights) will inherently skew whatever games they're a part of. Equally but oppositely you have massive hordes of Gaunts or Guardsman which just skew things the other way.
How can you possibly create a balanced list that can equally deal with 4 Knights or 400 Guardsman? It's just not possible and that's a big problem for the game, which is what leads to this general "rock, paper, scissors" feeling of list building.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
That'd pretty much begin & end with Chess & Go.
Lolno. When I play Infinity I don't have to have a conversation with my opponent about what units they're allowed to bring or not; I'm confident that pretty much no matter what we bring, the game will be decided by who plays better. Once you start looking outside of the GW bubble you realize their balance is bad. Really really bad.
LOL yes.
GW? I've known what GW is/isn't for decades. And outside the tourney scenes? I've yet to encounter a minis game where we haven't discussed what type of game/xp we're aiming for. This includes your precious Infinity.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't disagree. 40k has a lot of elements that really shouldn't be here if you wanted to make a fun game.
Superheavies, particularly entire factions of them (Knights) will inherently skew whatever games they're a part of. Equally but oppositely you have massive hordes of Gaunts or Guardsman which just skew things the other way.
How can you possibly create a balanced list that can equally deal with 4 Knights or 400 Guardsman? It's just not possible and that's a big problem for the game, which is what leads to this general "rock, paper, scissors" feeling of list building.
I don't know, some of the new secondaries do that rather well. As an ork player, bringing vastly more than 120 boyz is now a liability because of Thin Their ranks.
Knights mostly suffer from being unable to hold multiple objectives well and also give up 10 VP for just killing a single one.
Other kill secondary aren't balanced as well, but these two work rather nicely IMO.
I've not really played, but my theory crafting tells me secondaries only discourage taking a 'combined arms' approach.
Because each secondary is capped at 15 vp, they can kill 100 or 400 Boyz and it's still 15 vp.
But if you supplemented those Boyz with Trucks or Buggies or whatever, they're still scoring 15 vp for killing the boyz, but now they're also scoring points for killing your vehicles as well.
If, however, all of the "kill X thing" secondaries were in the same category, that would potentially encourage a combined arms approach more. As you would limit the opponent's ability to score any one secondary, without giving them the opportunity to score all the secondaries.
As ork, combined arms will lose you the game, no matter what you do. That's just how the army has always worked, because it's only defense mechanism is "bring more".
In any case, they need to kill 150 boyz for 15 VP, which translates to 1200 points already, before add HQs and support characters. The 4-5 additional buggies you can afford on top of that will not reward another 15 VP, as vehicles below 10 wounds are only 2VP a piece - and even then, it would require your entire army to be tabled to get all the VP.
That said, the vehicle/monster trait is a badly balanced one. Even without trying to build a skew army, it's just way to easy to give up 15 VP here. It's the sole reason why ork buggies don't see any competitive play despite being a really good army.
Well, the "kill secondaries" are all over the place.
If you gotta have them in the first place, it should be equally hard/easy to get your 15 points on a horde army, a vehicle/monster army, a bike army, an elite infantry army, etc.., etc..,
If anything, assuming the "core" concept gets rolled out to everyone similarly, there might even be an argument for making it harder to get points of (mostly non-core) vehicles / monsters compared to armies focussing on elite infantry, as that would introduces a trade-off in list building.
E.g., just using the Space Marine book as a limited examples, it probably should be something like "do I take the somewhat less efficient non-core tanks/vehicles like Predators, Gladiators, whatever, that don't use character buffs as well and struggle more on the primary, but THAT army gives up less/no secondaries, or do I take efficient core infantry units like Bladeguard, Vanguard Vets, Intercessors, etc, that make more efficient use of buffs and are generally good at the primary, but as a downside THAT army probably should bleed secondaries a lot more".
Bosskelot wrote: The way Marines are set out currently is just so obviously a bad idea it boggles the mind. They get about 50% more than anyone else ruleswise but pay nothing for these bonuses. Games are built on choices and decisions, with strengths being countered by drawbacks. Just look at the stupid amounts of stacked bonuses a chapter like BA gets and then see if they pay any extra points for these incredibly powerful mechanics. Of course they don't, but they also never will, or in the process of making them pay extra points, GW will cause issues for other chapters.
I don't disagree with this analysis - but I'm not sure on the conclusion.
The major issue with Marines is that their "buff architecture" (or perhaps to use a term from World of Warcraft, "Borrowed Power") - far exceeds that of other factions. Its possible, slowly, GW is going to roll out the same to all other factions, but certainly for the last 18 months its been near one-way traffic, with the possible exception of Sisters. (New Crons sort of lean in this direction - but their doctrines are incredibly fiddly to set up, at least after turn 1 or 2)
So yes, you get a "stat block/datasheet rules" like all factions do. But then you get bolter discipline, shock assault, doctrines and super doctrines - on top of generally superior conventional buffs to other factions.
When you look at something like Harlequins, I don't think the issue is buff on buff on buff. Its that the units are just undercosted following the 9th edition rules changes, and general points increase.
But this could all be factored in by points. A Marine - as a bolt gun toting 2 wound T4 3+ save model should cost *more* under the Marine Codex than the same sort of stats would be in another codex. Yet if you try and do comparisons to say Tau, you in fact find the opposite.
Yes, you probably can't balance an assault-focused unit so its *the same value* if its Blood Angels, White Scars etc - or if its Imperial Fists. But this is true of just about every unit in every other faction in the game. Its intrinsic to the Chapter Tactic system. The problem with Marines is just that some of these abilities (White Scars for me) - are so ludicrously off the scale compared to what other older factions get. Is it really a problem if unit X is better in chapter Y and so obviously worse in chapter Z? This seems a burden every other faction in the game suffers under.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Admech has been seeing some pretty major releases regularly since they were dropped. Almost keeping pace with Marines.
Guard are due for an update IMHO, but Guard also had the deepest forgeworld selection up until FW starting axing those models and then became just about producing Horus Heresy.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
I'm not looking for a fight now, and I don't really know the "stats", but exactly how is Admech almost keeping pace with SM?
Hasn't Admech gotten a tank, dogs, copter and their jump infantry? That's four units. I've probably missed one, so say five.
How many has SM gotten the past two years?
admech has basically got a release every 6 months during 8th. they havnt kept up with marines numbers but they did stay close in frequency.
Racerguy180 wrote: Karol is fun to pick on, but they are a product of their fethed up meta. Their perspective would be very different if they were introduced to the game in a chill and permissive environment. Hell it would've been really unfun to start the game in 8th with one of the weakest factions in a meta where OP eldar is course du jour. But that's no excuse for how they seem to paint all eldar players with the same brush.
I really hope the other factions get more love. for the health of the community and game as a whole.
Karol is also a literal child. Bear that in mind and be a little kinder when engaging with him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Castozor wrote: Harlies shouldn't even be a standalone army to begin with but here we are anyway. But having never played against them, SM were a problem even in casual play because their base power was incredibly high whereas harlies apparently weren't like that.
Harlequins have been a standalone army for longer than the Craftworlds, let alone my beloved Drukhari
Tyel wrote: Its possible, slowly, GW is going to roll out the same to all other factions, but certainly for the last 18 months its been near one-way traffic
Two points with this:
1) GW could easily update all factions at the start of the edition. Instead, it chooses to draw out the new codex releases over a period of years. And then once every faction has an up-to-date codex, they'll either start releasing buff supplements one at a time or else just go into the new edition and start the cycle all over again.
It amazes me how many fans will fanatically defend GW's anti-customer policies.
2) But let's say that you believe the above to be an absolute necessity. In this case, there's no reason why the 9th edition Marine book needs to be stronger than the others (notwithstanding possible loss-of-function due to core abilities/strategies no longer functioning in the new edition). They don't need to just pile on new buffs and abilities for little to no cost. They could easily not add such things in the first place or else add drawbacks to counter them.
stratigo wrote: There hasn't been a big enough tournament. Currently, when they do go out, the very top competitive players are mostly refining and testing. With all the big big tournies on lockdown, there's less reason to go with what is appearing to be the top top meta, or going with a list that is antimeta.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine not fixing your own army and telling the other player THEY need to adjust to YOUR needs.
Imagine having a game balanced enough where this isn't necessary...
That'd pretty much begin & end with Chess & Go.
Lolno. When I play Infinity I don't have to have a conversation with my opponent about what units they're allowed to bring or not; I'm confident that pretty much no matter what we bring, the game will be decided by who plays better. Once you start looking outside of the GW bubble you realize their balance is bad. Really really bad.
LOL yes.
GW? I've known what GW is/isn't for decades. And outside the tourney scenes? I've yet to encounter a minis game where we haven't discussed what type of game/xp we're aiming for. This includes your precious Infinity.
Oh my, the infinity games against non-deploying opponents. Vexing.
There are big tournaments being run (check out goonhammer for some data) in countries that actually handled the COVID outbreak with a modicum of common sense. Harlies still have like a 3% playrate. I guess only 3% of the player base actually cares about winning, since they're the Strongest Army. Good reason not to balance for competitive play if 97% of players aren't competitive.
The alternative is that Harlequins are not the Strongest Army, but I'd hate to contradict any of the posters here for risk of starting a fight.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't disagree. 40k has a lot of elements that really shouldn't be here if you wanted to make a fun game.
Superheavies, particularly entire factions of them (Knights) will inherently skew whatever games they're a part of. Equally but oppositely you have massive hordes of Gaunts or Guardsman which just skew things the other way.
How can you possibly create a balanced list that can equally deal with 4 Knights or 400 Guardsman? It's just not possible and that's a big problem for the game, which is what leads to this general "rock, paper, scissors" feeling of list building.
I don't know, some of the new secondaries do that rather well. As an ork player, bringing vastly more than 120 boyz is now a liability because of Thin Their ranks.
Knights mostly suffer from being unable to hold multiple objectives well and also give up 10 VP for just killing a single one.
Other kill secondary aren't balanced as well, but these two work rather nicely IMO.
Giving a few VP on a sec mission, which are anyway capped at 15, is by no means a deterrent to play a massively skewed list.
GW could just cap the number of models one can bring at 120 or something, and the number of superheavies or vehicules or monsters etc to prevent skew list. The fact that they seem to never go that way means they need to come up with other stuff.
I think the VPs is a good way to even things out. Perhaps we could have SOME (not all) kill secondaries bring more than 15 ? Otherwise I honestly would not mind a cap on model count (120 models, 10 vehicules/monsters, and the list goes on and on), but it is probably a slippery slope, and not good for selling models to whales. And I really think GW do not want to that (though they did do rule of 3, something I never thought they would do)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: There are big tournaments being run (check out goonhammer for some data) in countries that actually handled the COVID outbreak with a modicum of common sense. Harlies still have like a 3% playrate. I guess only 3% of the player base actually cares about winning, since they're the Strongest Army. Good reason not to balance for competitive play if 97% of players aren't competitive.
The alternative is that Harlequins are not the Strongest Army, but I'd hate to contradict any of the posters here for risk of starting a fight.
Even a comp dude (or dudette) knows that by the time he has his/her clown army painted and ready to win, down come the nerf hammer in the guise of point increases all over the board. I have played GSC since 7th edition, so I know the drill. It is just a matter of time. It does seem like a fun army to play though, so anyone who loves the fluff, the aesthetics, and can stomach a whack of the nerf bat, go for it !
Also, if like me you have to paint your own models because otherwise you feel it will never truly be "your own army", then you need skill ! lots of it ! A clown army painted by anything other than a top tier painter looks ugly as sin. Sad but true. I think that reason alone explains how rare they are, even at tournaments, even though they are currently top dog
If anything, assuming the "core" concept gets rolled out to everyone similarly, there might even be an argument for making it harder to get points of (mostly non-core) vehicles / monsters compared to armies focussing on elite infantry, as that would introduces a trade-off in list building.
The problem is, it's already not been rolled out similarly right out of the gate. Not sure I'd count on CORE for helping much of anything going forward.
LOL yes.
GW? I've known what GW is/isn't for decades. And outside the tourney scenes? I've yet to encounter a minis game where we haven't discussed what type of game/xp we're aiming for. This includes your precious Infinity.
The difference is, if you don't have that conversation, 40k will often be a car crash. Infinity will work fine; its balance, mission design, and unit design are far better than 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I've not really played, but my theory crafting tells me secondaries only discourage taking a 'combined arms' approach.
Which is hilarious because GW seems to say, on the surface, that they want people to take a combined arms approach... and then they make rules which reward people for skew/spam.
LOL yes.
GW? I've known what GW is/isn't for decades. And outside the tourney scenes? I've yet to encounter a minis game where we haven't discussed what type of game/xp we're aiming for. This includes your precious Infinity.
The difference is, if you don't have that conversation, 40k will often be a car crash. Infinity will work fine; its balance, mission design, and unit design are far better than 40k. .
Sure CB could be seen as better than GW (many are). But Agrue & deny it all you like, I'm sure that were I to brush up on current infinity rules I could find something to play that'd make you wish for that conversation.
None if these companies are perfect.. and each of us could well have different ideas/preferences. Wich, outside tourney play (where I dont give a damn about my opponents preferences, only that they loose)is why we have such conversations. Now if you & I were playing and we'd had this conversation? Then it wouldn't need repeating. We'd already be on the same page.
If we'd not played before? Or play together infrequently? Yeah, were having it.
ccs wrote: Sure CB could be seen as better than GW (many are). But Agrue & deny it all you like, I'm sure that were I to brush up on current infinity rules I could find something to play that'd make you wish for that conversation.
Uh... no. I go to tournaments where people run the best lists they can. Doesn't stress me out. The difference is that in Infinity, power comes from decisions made on the table more often than decisions made at the listbuilding step. I doubt you could come up with a list that would stress me out - I've played against some of the best and done just fine.
Put simply, you're wrong on a pretty fundamental level.
ccs wrote: ...Sure CB could be seen as better than GW (many are). But Agrue & deny it all you like, I'm sure that were I to brush up on current infinity rules I could find something to play that'd make you wish for that conversation...
After the 15-order limit, the Muttawiyah AVA nerf, and the EM nerf? I honestly can't think of anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Catulle wrote: ...Oh my, the infinity games against non-deploying opponents. Vexing.
-Don't play five-order lists. Heavy armour (TAGs, expensive HI) are like tanks in other games, you need a skirmish screen or the enemy will be able to sneak up on them and whack them.
-Find a source of Sixth Sense (there's usually a model or two with it on their profile per faction, plus any four-man fireteam gets it) or an MSV3 (rarer/more expensive, but very helpful) to negate Surprise Shot.
-Shotguns (Mimetism -6? Range mod +6. No visor necessary.), mines/templates (dodging requires you reveal the model).
-Sensor-bots (Every faction's got cheap fast models with Sensor, it doesn't require LOF, the area is huge, and you don't even need to know the hidden model's there).
The tools to counter null-deploy/camo-spam are many and varied. It's hard to have none of them if you aren't either deliberately building a list around having none of them, or deliberately building a one-dimensional joke list.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Admech has been seeing some pretty major releases regularly since they were dropped. Almost keeping pace with Marines.
Guard are due for an update IMHO, but Guard also had the deepest forgeworld selection up until FW starting axing those models and then became just about producing Horus Heresy.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
I'm not looking for a fight now, and I don't really know the "stats", but exactly how is Admech almost keeping pace with SM?
Hasn't Admech gotten a tank, dogs, copter and their jump infantry? That's four units. I've probably missed one, so say five.
How many has SM gotten the past two years?
Well if one of the unbiased space marine fans made the claim i'm sure it's basically equal. Let's see, just from memory, we've had...
New Techpriest
New fat laser guy techpriest
Skitarii horses
Skitarii Plane
Skitarii transport
Skitarii Wingalings
And for space marines
Infiltrators/Incursors
Suppressors
Phobos libby
Phobos Captain
Phobos Lt
invictor warsuit
Flying Rhino
Repulsor Executioner
Eliminators
Outriders
Biker Chap
Invader ATV
Gladiator
Assault Ints
Judicar
Heavy Ints
Eradicators
Bladeguard
Storm Shield Captain
Gravis Captain
Bladeguard Ancient
Volkite Lieutenant
Flying...thing, tank guy
Drop Pod Turret
Dude Wired In Turret
...Not to mention chapter-specific characters, ~12-15 of those, upgrade packs, limited release models, Space Marine Heroes...
So, you know. About the same. Basically neck and neck.
Keep in mind that's all the AdMech stuff released in all of 8th edition, so the SM stuff should include the initial Primaris wave as well (Intercessors, Aggressors, Hellblasters, Reivers, Repulsor, Gravis Captain, loads of Lieutenant sculpts, Primaris flag-dude, Repulsor, Inceptors).
AnomanderRake wrote: Keep in mind that's all the AdMech stuff released in all of 8th edition, so the SM stuff should include the initial Primaris wave as well (Intercessors, Aggressors, Hellblasters, Reivers, Repulsor, Gravis Captain, loads of Lieutenant sculpts, Primaris flag-dude, Repulsor, Inceptors).
Sure, that'd be reasonable, but since the person I was replying to said "2 years" I knew people would cry foul, just like they would have if I included all the subfaction-specific marine units (I did also include all the subfaction-specific Admech units, though)
Cue all the space marine players chiming in to say how they HAD to release 50 new kits in 2 years to replace such ancient trash as the devastator kit from 7th edition or the venerable dreadnought from 6th edition.
I feel wading into infinity chat is difficult because I've not played for ages - but I think the point is that player skill differentials are *extreme* and so *obvious*. Unless N4 or whatever has changed things, the odds are you will lose your first 10 games of infinity if playing with anyone who knows what they are doing.
I'm not actually sure modern 9th edition 40k is so different - but for some reason its assumed you line up on the deployment line and run at each other. Then roll some dice until someone falls over. And if one faction falls over less than the other, its clear faction imbalance the end. But this isn't really how decent players play - even if list/faction imbalance is a thing.
Tyel wrote: I feel wading into infinity chat is difficult because I've not played for ages - but I think the point is that player skill differentials are *extreme* and so *obvious*. Unless N4 or whatever has changed things, the odds are you will lose your first 10 games of infinity if playing with anyone who knows what they are doing.
I'm not actually sure modern 9th edition 40k is so different - but for some reason its assumed you line up on the deployment line and run at each other. Then roll some dice until someone falls over. And if one faction falls over less than the other, its clear faction imbalance the end. But this isn't really how decent players play - even if list/faction imbalance is a thing.
It is absolutely true that the skill bar to start playing Infinity is way higher than it is to start playing 40k. The point people are trying to make with the comparison is that it's way harder to lose Infinity when list-building than it is with 40k; in Infinity you can use any models so long as you've got a variety of tools to handle different types of targets, while in 40k you need to make sure that a) you've got the tools to handle a variety of targets, b) you aren't using any units that give up secondary objective points too easily (ex. playing GK), c) you aren't using units that are unplayable purely on cost-effectiveness (ex. Land Raiders), d) you have the required support stack to make everything function, e) you're taking either minimum units to spread out as much as possible or maximum units to maximize stratagems/psychic buffs, f) you're deploying as little on the table as you can get away with so you can play Reserves chicken, g) you're only using units that can efficiently interact with your stratagems, and h) GW has seen fit to grant your Codex the speed to get first-turn charges, the durability to sit in the middle of the table and not die quickly, or both.
Tyel wrote: I feel wading into infinity chat is difficult because I've not played for ages - but I think the point is that player skill differentials are *extreme* and so *obvious*. Unless N4 or whatever has changed things, the odds are you will lose your first 10 games of infinity if playing with anyone who knows what they are doing.
I'm not actually sure modern 9th edition 40k is so different - but for some reason its assumed you line up on the deployment line and run at each other. Then roll some dice until someone falls over. And if one faction falls over less than the other, its clear faction imbalance the end. But this isn't really how decent players play - even if list/faction imbalance is a thing.
I don't think anyone is arguing that skill doesn't matter for 40K and wins or losses are driven solely by game balance. It's more that an army's performance is at least as much driven by listbuilding as by in-game decisions, whereas in Infinity it's primarily gameplay and listbuilding takes a back seat. For a total newbie, you lose your first ten games of Infinity because you don't know what you're doing, not because you don't know what you're doing and half the units you brought are crap, none of them synergize, and you need to drop another $300 to get a working army.
Even a comp dude (or dudette) knows that by the time he has his/her clown army painted and ready to win, down come the nerf hammer in the guise of point increases all over the board. I have played GSC since 7th edition, so I know the drill. It is just a matter of time. It does seem like a fun army to play though, so anyone who loves the fluff, the aesthetics, and can stomach a whack of the nerf bat, go for it !
Also, if like me you have to paint your own models because otherwise you feel it will never truly be "your own army", then you need skill ! lots of it ! A clown army painted by anything other than a top tier painter looks ugly as sin. Sad but true. I think that reason alone explains how rare they are, even at tournaments, even though they are currently top dog
absolutely, all those super competitive guys will never buy a skew list or a top tier meta army just to play for a few months...that never happens. I was a bit astounded by how many players decided to buy Knights, and how many bought guardsmen...but only 32 of them.
Likewise, I was a bit shocked when 8th dropped at how many SM players had whole armies comprised of Stormravens. Even more surprised at how many Iron Hands Space Marine players were also top tier tournament players...weird.
Sarcasm aside, yeah, if Harlequins were actually top tier you would see a MUCH bigger swing for them. Compare current tournament results to 8th edition meta lists.
SemperMortis wrote: Even more surprised at how many Iron Hands Space Marine players were also top tier tournament players...weird.
Yes, who knew that every other SM player (of any caliber) just so happened to have nearly the same IH force built, painted up, & sitting there in the closet/on the shelf and only revealed it in 2019....
SemperMortis wrote: Even more surprised at how many Iron Hands Space Marine players were also top tier tournament players...weird.
Yes, who knew that every other SM player (of any caliber) just so happened to have nearly the same IH force built, painted up, & sitting there in the closet/on the shelf and only revealed it in 2019....
And now? Where'd they all go?
Sadly, they all suffered from Argyria (silver poisoning) and turned blue. But on the reverse, I've never before seen so many Ultra Marine lists.
Even a comp dude (or dudette) knows that by the time he has his/her clown army painted and ready to win, down come the nerf hammer in the guise of point increases all over the board. I have played GSC since 7th edition, so I know the drill. It is just a matter of time. It does seem like a fun army to play though, so anyone who loves the fluff, the aesthetics, and can stomach a whack of the nerf bat, go for it !
Also, if like me you have to paint your own models because otherwise you feel it will never truly be "your own army", then you need skill ! lots of it ! A clown army painted by anything other than a top tier painter looks ugly as sin. Sad but true. I think that reason alone explains how rare they are, even at tournaments, even though they are currently top dog
absolutely, all those super competitive guys will never buy a skew list or a top tier meta army just to play for a few months...that never happens. I was a bit astounded by how many players decided to buy Knights, and how many bought guardsmen...but only 32 of them.
Likewise, I was a bit shocked when 8th dropped at how many SM players had whole armies comprised of Stormravens. Even more surprised at how many Iron Hands Space Marine players were also top tier tournament players...weird.
Sarcasm aside, yeah, if Harlequins were actually top tier you would see a MUCH bigger swing for them. Compare current tournament results to 8th edition meta lists.
It is much easier to buy a built and painted space marine army than a harlequin one. I see marine armies up for sale everyday but almost never Harlequins. It is also much easier to add one or two units to an existing space marine army than to buy a whole new one.
Most players probably already have a core of marines and are content even when very competitive to lose a tiny sliver of advantage over getting a whole new army and learn to play it. If marines were crap and much weaker than you would probably see more do the leap. But why spend a few hundred $ and a few hundred hours(including practice time) in getting those Harlequins ready and hope the next release won't make Harlequins bad in the meta.
Harlequins are probably one of the most meta sensitive armies around since they can't really change units. Which is quite bad news for anyone who wants to jump in on army of the month. The way gw releases rules means that you never know more than a month in advance if huge changes will happen or not. Too much work for too high a risk to commit to Harlequins if anything changes.
If GW came out and said they will only release new codex/rules together with chapter approved once a year more would probably commit to getting the best army at the time. Even if it took them 2-3months to get their new army up and running they would still have a guarantee of 6+ months with it dominating. Now you are as likely as not to be the best army at the next event if you buy them now.
Ease of use is always a factor in competitive gaming. Harlequins very well may be the strongest overall army in 40k currently, but they're also the hardest to paint, one of the hardest to collect and one of the hardest to actually play well on the tabletop. This links in to my earlier post about Marines always being frustrating to play against because they have a low skill floor and a low skill ceiling, yet remain one of the strongest armies in the game still. Why bother playing such a risky skill-intensive army like Clowns when you could just pick an assortment of models from Indomitus or one of the Combat Patrol boxes and basically have a competitive list that could go 4-1/5-1 at a GT no problem? You saw this happening during the end of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty's life, where Terrans were switching en masse from the army to play Protoss or Zerg. Even though winrates looked fairly equal between the 3 races it obscured 2 major problems:
1) Terrans were only ever winning early game and could not stand up to lategame Protoss or Zerg whatsoever, especially in a meta and with a map pool that favoured long macro games to the exclusion of everything else
and
2) Terran was a few orders of magnitude harder to play than the other 2 races.
For people trying to climb the ladder and even professional players, they started to drop the race because they could play Zerg instead and get similar or better results, but for 50% less effort and stress.
If two armies have a roughly 50-50 winrate, yet one has to basically play out of their mind to even reach parity with the other faction that is basically just unga bunga'ing across the board then that isn't balanced, no matter what the percentage says. If you are hyper competitive and truly only care about being the best, then just pick a top tier and top tiers are usually that way for a variety of factors but also because their risk factor is incredibly low. They're usually safe picks that can do multiple different things very well in all manner of situations and have very few hard counters or glaring weaknesses. There does usually have to be an element of skill or mechanical requirement to them though, just to allow for skill depth to shine through and to stop them being completely braindead dominant because if you have a competitive game and the best race/character/whatever is also the easiest to play then your game has some serious issues.
That SC2 example before? The game was haemorrhaging players and viewers during that time. When Dota 2 has had metas where the easy to play unga bunga heroes have been buffed too much it's been a really negative experience for players and viewers too.
(essentially, your easy to play things should have a limit on what they can achieve because otherwise it's unhealthy for the game as a whole. Dota 2 and LoL have "pubstomp" and beginner heroes that basically never see competitive or high level play, and at times when they do because of bad balance patches it's always a negative experience)
Sarcasm aside, yeah, if Harlequins were actually top tier you would see a MUCH bigger swing for them. Compare current tournament results to 8th edition meta lists.
Oof, I understand disputing them being the best army in the game (they are, they have comparable or better play rates to the very best Space Marine chapters while being harder to paint, harder to play, as well as being a much more niche faction in eighth, while also having as many or more top four wins than any other faction), but I couldn't imagine being so deluded as to suggest they aren't even top tier.
(essentially, your easy to play things should have a limit on what they can achieve because otherwise it's unhealthy for the game as a whole. Dota 2 and LoL have "pubstomp" and beginner heroes that basically never see competitive or high level play, and at times when they do because of bad balance patches it's always a negative experience)
No, they shouldn't. Those "pubstomp" heroes (in League at least) aren't kept undertuned because they're easy. They're kept undertuned because their kits have unhealthy interactions or a lack of interaction that makes them far too reliable.
Ashe is a fairly common staple of high elo and professional play despite being one of the most brain-dead ADCs in League.
Something being harder to play doesn't give you the "right" to be more powerful.
BlackoCatto wrote: So when we say Imperials do we mean just Marines. I know besides some limited editions models that could be said that maybe some Guard players managed to grab and a Sisters revamp that has been waiting for 20+ years, there hasn't been that much beyond Marines.
Admech has been seeing some pretty major releases regularly since they were dropped. Almost keeping pace with Marines.
Guard are due for an update IMHO, but Guard also had the deepest forgeworld selection up until FW starting axing those models and then became just about producing Horus Heresy.
There are also a few competitive players that are faction loyal, usually to an imperial faction.
I'm not looking for a fight now, and I don't really know the "stats", but exactly how is Admech almost keeping pace with SM?
Hasn't Admech gotten a tank, dogs, copter and their jump infantry? That's four units. I've probably missed one, so say five.
How many has SM gotten the past two years?
Well if one of the unbiased space marine fans made the claim i'm sure it's basically equal. Let's see, just from memory, we've had...
New Techpriest
New fat laser guy techpriest
Skitarii horses
Skitarii Plane
Skitarii transport
Skitarii Wingalings
And for space marines
Infiltrators/Incursors
Suppressors
Phobos libby
Phobos Captain
Phobos Lt
invictor warsuit
Flying Rhino
Repulsor Executioner
Eliminators
Outriders
Biker Chap
Invader ATV
Gladiator
Assault Ints
Judicar
Heavy Ints
Eradicators
Bladeguard
Storm Shield Captain
Gravis Captain
Bladeguard Ancient
Volkite Lieutenant
Flying...thing, tank guy
Drop Pod Turret
Dude Wired In Turret
...Not to mention chapter-specific characters, ~12-15 of those, upgrade packs, limited release models, Space Marine Heroes...
So, you know. About the same. Basically neck and neck.
That is a pretty close list there, I knew Ad Mech were the chosen ones, chosen to get marine levels of support. ( Sarcasm just in case it wasn't noticed. )
with these release slots alone you could've easily made a R&H faction work.
Command squad
Malefic lord
Disciples
Militia
Mutant
Enforcer
rogue psykers.
Yet the later bunch sits now in legends with more braindead rules and internal balance then 7th edition as a whole whilest the other is the unending tide of Power armored nonsense.
In fact, you could've also taped in with the other slots an update to craftworld aspects AND corsairs.
Goes to show gw's "preferences" , actually favouritism is the better word.
Difficult to tell,, really.
the most pressing issue i heard for people to not start them was:
Availability, Concerns over rules and price in that order.
That has to do with them beeing in many ways the boutique version of SoB that were also stuck in a desinvestment cycle for a lot of the last decade.
However as we have seen, i don't think GW did expect the ammount of sales the sister update generated.
Truth of the matter is though, that SM are easily the most monetisable faction and they sure as hell get milked.
2 seperate rules sources just to play your chapter is frankly insulting , and we don't even have a core rulebook in that addition nor the army.
I totally agree, I'm refusing to buy any of the rules for 9th ed 40k.
Although part of that is because I hardly play anymore and the ~£80 I spent on 8th edition rules for about 6 games is not something I would describe as good value for money.
Ease of use is always a factor in competitive gaming. Harlequins very well may be the strongest overall army in 40k currently, but they're also the hardest to paint, one of the hardest to collect and one of the hardest to actually play well on the tabletop. This links in to my earlier post about Marines always being frustrating to play against because they have a low skill floor and a low skill ceiling, yet remain one of the strongest armies in the game still. Why bother playing such a risky skill-intensive army like Clowns when you could just pick an assortment of models from Indomitus or one of the Combat Patrol boxes and basically have a competitive list that could go 4-1/5-1 at a GT no problem? You saw this happening during the end of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty's life, where Terrans were switching en masse from the army to play Protoss or Zerg. Even though winrates looked fairly equal between the 3 races it obscured 2 major problems:
1) Terrans were only ever winning early game and could not stand up to lategame Protoss or Zerg whatsoever, especially in a meta and with a map pool that favoured long macro games to the exclusion of everything else
and
2) Terran was a few orders of magnitude harder to play than the other 2 races.
For people trying to climb the ladder and even professional players, they started to drop the race because they could play Zerg instead and get similar or better results, but for 50% less effort and stress.
If two armies have a roughly 50-50 winrate, yet one has to basically play out of their mind to even reach parity with the other faction that is basically just unga bunga'ing across the board then that isn't balanced, no matter what the percentage says. If you are hyper competitive and truly only care about being the best, then just pick a top tier and top tiers are usually that way for a variety of factors but also because their risk factor is incredibly low. They're usually safe picks that can do multiple different things very well in all manner of situations and have very few hard counters or glaring weaknesses. There does usually have to be an element of skill or mechanical requirement to them though, just to allow for skill depth to shine through and to stop them being completely braindead dominant because if you have a competitive game and the best race/character/whatever is also the easiest to play then your game has some serious issues.
That SC2 example before? The game was haemorrhaging players and viewers during that time. When Dota 2 has had metas where the easy to play unga bunga heroes have been buffed too much it's been a really negative experience for players and viewers too.
(essentially, your easy to play things should have a limit on what they can achieve because otherwise it's unhealthy for the game as a whole. Dota 2 and LoL have "pubstomp" and beginner heroes that basically never see competitive or high level play, and at times when they do because of bad balance patches it's always a negative experience)
In before someone berates you that 40k is much more complex than a video came (it's not)
But seriously, great post, I agree with much you have written recently on this topic.
Especially the variance in skill required to run certain armies is extreme in 40k.
Orks, despite their appearance, are an extremely hard to play army that has a rather high skill ceiling - when ork players place highly in GTs, it's usually seasoned veterans that have been playing them for years, and even someone like Nick Nanavati could not just hop to them and start winning tournaments, despite him doing exactly that with multiple other factions. Orks are an army that highly rewards skill an experience, and severely punishes mistakes.
In contrast, when I picked up Death Guard in early 8th, they were ridiculously easy to play compared to orks(I was winning games without knowing why I was winning) and despite there being a learning curve, I quickly hit a wall where I felt the only way to improve my game was by buying more optimal models (FW/daemons).
One thing needs to be addressed though, and that is the difference in effort to change what you play. Let's assume that you change Marines into an "easy to play, easy to master"-faction with a low power potential, then you would screw over any player who plays them as their primary/only army. For them, limiting potential would lock them out of competitive play - which is not only events like tournaments and leagues, but also communities and stores which play on a competitive level.
I guess you could put both entry-level and expert-level units in the same army, but I do think that - currently - GW lacks the expertise to design rules as sophisticated as that.
So I think the only way to do this for 40k is to limit the power level on the upper end as well as raise the power level on the lower end to have less "feels bad" situation where a player can't expect to win with their army, despite them being willing to learn how to play better and may investing in a limited amount of new miniatures.
The second thing is to take power out of list building and combos and put more power into decisions that are happening during the game - so stratagems, unit abilities and movement. Otherwise "mastering" an army is just copying a list. IMO what we have seen from 9th so far, GW is going in the right direction.
Not Online!!! wrote: Difficult to tell,, really. the most pressing issue i heard for people to not start them was: Availability, Concerns over rules and price in that order. That has to do with them beeing in many ways the boutique version of SoB that were also stuck in a desinvestment cycle for a lot of the last decade.
Not Online!!! wrote: However as we have seen, i don't think GW did expect the amount of sales the sister update generated.
Yes they did. They expended the time/effort/& expense to completely re-sculpt the entire line, add new stuff, & make it plastic (save for the Preacher & the Missionary for some reason). You don't make that kind of investment if you don't think it'll sell.
Not Online!!! wrote: Truth of the matter is though, that SM are easily the most monetisable faction and they sure as hell get milked. 2 seperate rules sources just to play your chapter is frankly insulting ,
I agree. Though there certainly were plenty of idiots championing the concept of core codex + supplement over the past year or so. Seemed all the rage to insist that we SW/DA/BA players be inconvenienced in order "to cut down on reprinting data sheets" book to book book. As if that's of any concern on our consumer side of the product.... Meanwhile DG, a faction of Chaos as detailed as my SW is only getting 1 required book....
Not Online!!! wrote: and we don't even have a core rulebook in that addition nor the army.
R&H?? It's like you lost part of your thought there. Or started in the middle of it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Difficult to tell,, really. the most pressing issue i heard for people to not start them was: Availability, Concerns over rules and price in that order. That has to do with them beeing in many ways the boutique version of SoB that were also stuck in a desinvestment cycle for a lot of the last decade.
Not Online!!! wrote: However as we have seen, i don't think GW did expect the amount of sales the sister update generated.
Yes they did. They expended the time/effort/& expense to completely re-sculpt the entire line, add new stuff, & make it plastic (save for the Preacher & the Missionary for some reason). You don't make that kind of investment if you don't think it'll sell.
That's why we had massive shortages of delivery? If anything they expected to sell it but seemingly did substantially underestimate the ammount they 'd sell in total.
Not Online!!! wrote: Truth of the matter is though, that SM are easily the most monetisable faction and they sure as hell get milked. 2 seperate rules sources just to play your chapter is frankly insulting ,
I agree. Though there certainly were plenty of idiots championing the concept of core codex + supplement over the past year or so. Seemed all the rage to insist that we SW/DA/BA players be inconvenienced in order "to cut down on reprinting data sheets" book to book book. As if that's of any concern on our consumer side of the product.... Meanwhile DG, a faction of Chaos as detailed as my SW is only getting 1 required book....
The issue is not the consolidation but rather then propperly doing it, aka 1 book for them all with maybee seperate lists + equipment options depending upon chapter you now get to buy 2 books for an additiopnal 70% more cost to you... ( i assume that such a big book would cost extra $£EURCHF because GW)
PS: on the whole DGTS separate dex thingy, i'd expect gw to throw out EC and WE also separately , only to consolidate them in the same style as SM are inevitably because dual book sales....
Not Online!!! wrote: and we don't even have a core rulebook in that addition nor the army.
R&H?? It's like you lost part of your thought there. Or started in the middle of it.
Nah, the addition of the two books Codex + supplement, aren't even the total you'd need to have the full set of rules or the units to field the army. Basically i am critising GW's audacity to also force you to buy the core rules.
ccs wrote: Yes they did. They expended the time/effort/& expense to completely re-sculpt the entire line, add new stuff, & make it plastic (save for the Preacher & the Missionary for some reason).
You don't make that kind of investment if you don't think it'll sell.
I read that the original boxed set- the one that sold out within half an hour- was expected to last from its release in September through Christmas. We know they had to scramble to produce more.
They may have expected it to sell, but certainly not in the volume that it did. To me the unexpected popularity of the Sisters release is the clearest sign that GW's releases aren't driven by perfect knowledge of what the community wants.
Not Online!!! wrote: That's why we had massive shortages of delivery? If anything they expected to sell it but seemingly did substantially underestimate the ammount they 'd sell in total.
This hasn't been confined just to Sisters though has it? I guess more recent issues can be put down to Covid, but I think the main thing (despite what forums would have you believe) is that 40k is on a major high, stuff is flying off the shelves and GW can't keep up.
Which is reflected in the results and share price - but unfortunately also motivates GW to keep hiking the price. Because if you are selling out, why not?
Not Online!!! wrote: That's why we had massive shortages of delivery? If anything they expected to sell it but seemingly did substantially underestimate the ammount they 'd sell in total.
This hasn't been confined just to Sisters though has it? I guess more recent issues can be put down to Covid, but I think the main thing (despite what forums would have you believe) is that 40k is on a major high, stuff is flying off the shelves and GW can't keep up.
Which is reflected in the results and share price - but unfortunately also motivates GW to keep hiking the price. Because if you are selling out, why not?
Well i remember GSC relaunch. It was a good day for the local Gaming store There's also the other side of GW, beeing in many ways a monopolistic entity due to IP law and economies of scale in a market with a relatively high entry barrier, (plastic miniatures) , which is also protecting them kinda.
And they take full advantage off it, cue price rise during a pandemic.
ccs wrote: Yes they did. They expended the time/effort/& expense to completely re-sculpt the entire line, add new stuff, & make it plastic (save for the Preacher & the Missionary for some reason).
You don't make that kind of investment if you don't think it'll sell.
I read that the original boxed set- the one that sold out within half an hour- was expected to last from its release in September through Christmas. We know they had to scramble to produce more.
They may have expected it to sell, but certainly not in the volume that it did. To me the unexpected popularity of the Sisters release is the clearest sign that GW's releases aren't driven by perfect knowledge of what the community wants.
no Gw's releases are driven by monetary reasons alone.
Producing more Primaris or SM is also low effort high yield, hence why we see a lot of power armor.
I sincerly suspect they didn't even consider remaking the SoB until that fatefull custommer survey, which was probably ear deafening to them, in a way they made the mental math and decided that it'd sell enough and garner some goodwill back, something GW still had at the time not so much.
It seems to me though that they fail to connect to their custommer base at a most basic level and even though they got better at it, kinda, they still are pretty tone deaf as the recent "metawatch article" promises...
Personally, i think there is no bad core faction concept to be put into an army in 40k, there's only issues with GW handling the factions that lead to issues in regards to support and desinvestment cycles. I'd consider f.e. to start a small aspect warrior army the instant if the kit's would've been updated.
Gw also has went to far price wise with some factions, think Guard with the cadians, not only are the potatoheads fugly turning off quite a few people but also for what it is and how many you need quite overpriced, making starting an guard army an daunting prospect, contrary to SM which flood the second hand market and starter boxes galore.
VladimirHerzog wrote: How is making any model low effort? Every model has the same steps to follow for its development.
Simple, take hounds of morkai f.e. It's a reiver CtrlC + Ctrl V and some bonus bits designed virtually.
Infact there's a lot of eerily similar poses for PA infantry. Alot of the older stuff that would need a rework has been sculpted a long time ago and might not even be virtualised.
Therefore virtualising the later costs more and is a longer process costing even more then the stuff above.
On the other hand, digital sculpting is easier and faster than hand sculpting, leading to less money spent on it. And once you sculpt the first basic guardian mesh, you can easily speed he process up by using it as basis for aspect armor.
It still doesn't change the fact that GW is detached from it's fanbase, and literally just produces what they know will sell without knowing why the other thing isn't selling. For all we know the managerial staff might actually huff their own farts and think people "just don't like xenos".
VladimirHerzog wrote: How is making any model low effort? Every model has the same steps to follow for its development.
Simple, take hounds of morkai f.e.
It's a reiver CtrlC + Ctrl V and some bonus bits designed virtually.
Infact there's a lot of eerily similar poses for PA infantry.
Alot of the older stuff that would need a rework has been sculpted a long time ago and might not even be virtualised.
Therefore virtualising the later costs more and is a longer process costing even more then the stuff above.
Hounds of morkai arent a new model tho, theyre a bundle.
Making a squad of Intercessors requires just as much effort as making a squad of guardians/fire warriors
Taking the existing Intercessor model, then designing a minor variation of bolter to go with them, takes significantly less effort than designing a whole new model like a Guardian.
VladimirHerzog wrote: How is making any model low effort? Every model has the same steps to follow for its development.
Simple, take hounds of morkai f.e.
It's a reiver CtrlC + Ctrl V and some bonus bits designed virtually.
Infact there's a lot of eerily similar poses for PA infantry.
Alot of the older stuff that would need a rework has been sculpted a long time ago and might not even be virtualised.
Therefore virtualising the later costs more and is a longer process costing even more then the stuff above.
Hounds of morkai arent a new model tho, theyre a bundle.
Making a squad of Intercessors requires just as much effort as making a squad of guardians/fire warriors
They're a new unit entry with very much zero effort on GW's part (for both the model AND rules)
VladimirHerzog wrote: How is making any model low effort? Every model has the same steps to follow for its development.
Simple, take hounds of morkai f.e. It's a reiver CtrlC + Ctrl V and some bonus bits designed virtually.
Infact there's a lot of eerily similar poses for PA infantry. Alot of the older stuff that would need a rework has been sculpted a long time ago and might not even be virtualised.
Therefore virtualising the later costs more and is a longer process costing even more then the stuff above.
Hounds of morkai arent a new model tho, theyre a bundle. Making a squad of Intercessors requires just as much effort as making a squad of guardians/fire warriors
kirotheavenger wrote:Taking the existing Intercessor model, then designing a minor variation of bolter to go with them, takes significantly less effort than designing a whole new model like a Guardian.
Kiro has it. That is the core issue, it's even more drastic, assuming SM were the first digitalised sculpting done, you can perfectly use their shiloutte and bits, modify accordingly and have x ammount of units for a lot of factions rather fast. It makes anything SM in PA a breeze to design. Meanwhile new eldar sculpts would need to be baseline redone digitally and then only you can get the benefits of doing so. Further Marines and to a degree chaos marines, are really homogenous, unlike Eldar which have for basically every unit type a drastic armor variation.
Of course. But you know what making R&H work wouldn't do? Make them the desired amount of $.
Maybe, maybe not. GW was apparently caught off guard by the amount of sales they made with the SoB relaunch. And to a large extent the degree to which Astartes sales make them money is because they invest all their marketing money into promoting Astartes. It'd be more accurate to say they'd rather make a dime with Astartes than a dollar with another faction.
The second thing is to take power out of list building and combos and put more power into decisions that are happening during the game - so stratagems, unit abilities and movement. Otherwise "mastering" an army is just copying a list. IMO what we have seen from 9th so far, GW is going in the right direction.
I think GW doesn't want mastery to be a big factor in how games of 40k shake out - otherwise players couldn't solve the problem of losing a game by buying a new model.
Hecaton wrote: I think GW doesn't want mastery to be a big factor in how games of 40k shake out - otherwise players couldn't solve the problem of losing a game by buying a new model.
I can't picture the designers, who genuinely seem to care about the game, sitting down and deciding that they want the game to be shallow so that people keep buying stuff.
And I can't picture corporate executives, who drive that sort of profit-focused decision-making, having the requisite knowledge of game design theory to recognize the principle of mastery, assess how 40K stacks up in that regard compared to its competitors, and demand that the game provide a low skill ceiling so they can keep up the churn.
I think we have to keep in mind that GW is not a monolithic entity. To me it seems like the designers just struggle to produce a system that can be tactically deep, account for the sheer amount of stuff present in the game, and still be playable in an afternoon. They do a much better job with the specialty games that don't try to account for everything from combat knives to ICBMs.
catbarf wrote: ...I think we have to keep in mind that GW is not a monolithic entity. To me it seems like the designers just struggle to produce a system that can be tactically deep, account for the sheer amount of stuff present in the game, and still be playable in an afternoon. They do a much better job with the specialty games that don't try to account for everything from combat knives to ICBMs.
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the specialist games have one design team and everyone involved all talks to each other, while 40k/Sigmar have a number of competing teams that don't talk to each other and there's no game designer in a leadership position to set any kind of unified direction. Any given rulebook, Codex, or supplement is written by someone who doesn't know what else exists in the game. Anything that's OP/useless is that way by accident, because the writers don't understand the context their rules are going to fit into.
catbarf wrote: ...I think we have to keep in mind that GW is not a monolithic entity. To me it seems like the designers just struggle to produce a system that can be tactically deep, account for the sheer amount of stuff present in the game, and still be playable in an afternoon. They do a much better job with the specialty games that don't try to account for everything from combat knives to ICBMs.
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the specialist games have one design team and everyone involved all talks to each other, while 40k/Sigmar have a number of competing teams that don't talk to each other and there's no game designer in a leadership position to set any kind of unified direction. Any given rulebook, Codex, or supplement is written by someone who doesn't know what else exists in the game. Anything that's OP/useless is that way by accident, because the writers don't understand the context their rules are going to fit into.
Definitely this. For example, it very much feels like the whole slew of releases that started with the indomitus box and its content was designed without talking to the guys who were writing Codex: SM 9.1 in the meantime.
Bosskelot wrote: Ease of use is always a factor in competitive gaming. Harlequins very well may be the strongest overall army in 40k currently, but they're also the hardest to paint, one of the hardest to collect and one of the hardest to actually play well on the tabletop. This links in to my earlier post about Marines always being frustrating to play against because they have a low skill floor and a low skill ceiling, yet remain one of the strongest armies in the game still. Why bother playing such a risky skill-intensive army like Clowns when you could just pick an assortment of models from Indomitus or one of the Combat Patrol boxes and basically have a competitive list that could go 4-1/5-1 at a GT no problem? You saw this happening during the end of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty's life, where Terrans were switching en masse from the army to play Protoss or Zerg. Even though winrates looked fairly equal between the 3 races it obscured 2 major problems:
1) Terrans were only ever winning early game and could not stand up to lategame Protoss or Zerg whatsoever, especially in a meta and with a map pool that favoured long macro games to the exclusion of everything else
and
2) Terran was a few orders of magnitude harder to play than the other 2 races.
Did SC2 have 50/50 win rates though? What sort of level are we talking about?
My memory of Late Game Wings of Liberty was less "Terran are harder to play" - although I'd maybe agree - the issue was as you say, weakness late game. Which meant you had to *win* early on, which invariably brought its own problems. Drawing with a hope to sorting things out later was usually not enough.
The main meta issue though was that Infestor-Broodlord was completely busted. At a comparable technical skill it was superior to everything in the game, and this could be seen in tournament results. (It wasn't an auto-win because you had to get there, but assuming you did things started to spiral.) And it seemed Blizzard had no interest in fixing it, because HOTS was "coming soon" and they wanted you to buy that. (So far, so GW I guess.)
I think you have to be careful on this idea that there are low skill and high skill armies in 40k - which I feel was a mistake Blizzard famously made at the outset of Warcraft 3 (Night Elves will be the "micro faction", oh look games seem to be all DH+Mass hunts, uh, this is terrible, grab the nerfbat). I guess its true - something like Harlequins is *complex* because they are so fast - and can dance in and out of combat. So you need to learn how to use that to get the most out of the army. But to a degree learning movement and positioning applies to every faction in the game. When the DE 8th edition Codex came out, and I think its fair to say they were top tier. The fact they were *fast* didn't make them hard to play. It just made them *incredibly good*.
The idea (since at least 2nd edition tbh) seems to be that if an army like Harlequins are caught out, they'll be punished. Whereas something like Marines should be more forgiving - so you can bounce back and still win. But is that really case at the top end of games? That Harlequin player has got his minuses to hit/wound and invuls. So if the dice fall right they can shrug off anything (barring death hex etc, but kind of niche.)
catbarf wrote: I can't picture the designers, who genuinely seem to care about the game, sitting down and deciding that they want the game to be shallow so that people keep buying stuff.
And I can't picture corporate executives, who drive that sort of profit-focused decision-making, having the requisite knowledge of game design theory to recognize the principle of mastery, assess how 40K stacks up in that regard compared to its competitors, and demand that the game provide a low skill ceiling so they can keep up the churn.
All it takes is one designer who understands how to drive that sort of a game talking to the execs and they'll get on board with that plan. They definitely talk and think about this kind of stuff.
Hecaton wrote: And to a large extent the degree to which Astartes sales make them money is because they invest all their marketing money into promoting Astartes. It'd be more accurate to say they'd rather make a dime with Astartes than a dollar with another faction.
I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.
Most players either actively play Space Marines or have a small force kicking around somewhere. Adding a new unit to an existing faction is going to appeal to a lot more people than picking up an entire new faction.
So if GW makes a new Guardian sculpt, and its really awesome.
- a lot of Eldar players aren't interested because they have enough Guardians.
- most players don't play Eldar and although they'd love to spend £30 on five Guardians, they can justify £400 on an Eldar army.
- some players can and so buy tbr box.
You can circumvent the first point by making it a *new* *bigger and better* unit though.
But the second point is key. The Space Marine player base is just so much larger than anything else.
Sure, if GW advertised and hyped up other factions with kits and books they would sell better. But the focus is great for GW as it maximises the return on investment for them.
They tried to put Sigmarines into this niche with the launch of AoS, but the plsyerbase just didn't form the same fanbase.
I don't think the rules writers and specifically looking to make new units OP. But I think there is a definite desire to make each new thing more interesting than what came before, from the writer's themselves but particularly from higher up.
One way is to make their guns better and cooler that whatever came before.
Another is to make them faster or tougher than what came before.
Another is to give them awesome special rules, like the ability to shoot twice or move super far or whatever.
Which often comes out as the unit being a bit overpowered.
But the second point is key. The Space Marine player base is just so much larger than anything else.
Of course the downside to this is that by releasing only marines (with occasional non-marine imperial and ever so rare xenos model) you end up with unhappy xenos/non-imperial playerbase which may either shelve their armies for more marines, or just quit 40k, resulting in nothing but mirror matches, which in turn a)deprives the marine players of their power fulfillment fantasies and b)is just boring to play to the marine players will inevitably feel less engaged. All of which will result in lower sales in the long run.
But the second point is key. The Space Marine player base is just so much larger than anything else.
Of course the downside to this is that by releasing only marines (with occasional non-marine imperial and ever so rare xenos model) you end up with unhappy xenos/non-imperial playerbase which may either shelve their armies for more marines, or just quit 40k, resulting in nothing but mirror matches, which in turn a)deprives the marine players of their power fulfillment fantasies and b)is just boring to play to the marine players will inevitably feel less engaged. All of which will result in lower sales in the long run.
As an aside, there's an even better marine VS marine game out there by the same company
I don't disagree, I think GW's current direction is a little short sighted, but there's no denying how well it's worked for the the last few years and will likely continue to work for the next few years.
But hey, the more people walk away from 40k the better, imo. There are so many better games people can experience.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't disagree, I think GW's current direction is a little short sighted, but there's no denying how well it's worked for the the last few years and will likely continue to work for the next few years. But hey, the more people walk away from 40k the better, imo. There are so many better games people can experience.
Due to the monolithic market power in some regions that is a bit of an issue. The experiencing of other games relies upon communities for these existing in the first place. Scratch building one up is an ordeal in itself Further there's sunk cost and there's the IP .
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't disagree, I think GW's current direction is a little short sighted, but there's no denying how well it's worked for the the last few years and will likely continue to work for the next few years.
But hey, the more people walk away from 40k the better, imo. There are so many better games people can experience.
Due to the monolithic market power in some regions that is a bit of an issue. The experiencing of other games relies upon communities for these existing in the first place. Scratch building one up is an ordeal in itself
Further there's sunk cost and there's the IP .
Alot of games can't compete GW on these things.
Bingo, that's exactly the point.
Although there are some "not-40k-honest-guv" games like Grim Dark Future, it's the plsyerbase.
40k massively dominates gaming groups and a lot of players simply aren't willing to try anything else, even if it means using the same models.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't disagree, I think GW's current direction is a little short sighted, but there's no denying how well it's worked for the the last few years and will likely continue to work for the next few years.
But hey, the more people walk away from 40k the better, imo. There are so many better games people can experience.
Due to the monolithic market power in some regions that is a bit of an issue. The experiencing of other games relies upon communities for these existing in the first place. Scratch building one up is an ordeal in itself
Further there's sunk cost and there's the IP .
Alot of games can't compete GW on these things.
Bingo, that's exactly the point.
Although there are some "not-40k-honest-guv" games like Grim Dark Future, it's the plsyerbase.
40k massively dominates gaming groups and a lot of players simply aren't willing to try anything else, even if it means using the same models.
It's that ease of availability for an opponent that makes GW/ 40k such a draw. Basically it has reached critical mass to have it's own gravitation.
And within 40k there's faction that has reached that state aswell...
It's funny though how over here during 6-7th our FLGS had a break down in GW games and now we have a more varied and healthy game scene.
I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.
And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?
Sure, Astartes products tend to be more lucrative, but that's because GW has put a lot of effort into engineering a situation where that's true, and there's opportunity costs to that.
