So if we exclude a whole bunch of new Marine models and only look at the most recent Marine release wave, they're just the same as Orks!
Well I'm glad that isn't at all a biased analysis.
Do you genuinely believe that a release wave alongside a new codex should be allocated the same production & design resources as a new edition starter set that occurs every few years? If so I don't know what to tell you, other than it would be biased not to account for that.
For what it's worth, Necrons got the same number of new kits as Orks outside Indomitus, and the same number as Marines if you include it.
Except there is no reason to hate kits for the sole reason of being mono-pose.
You might not care what your game tokens look like but others do, people like building and customising.
Have you seen this horrible monopose kit? It's one of the worst ones ever made, you can literally customize nothing about it, despite being more expensive than almost every multi-pose kit in existence!
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goose LeChance wrote: How long did Ork players wait for new models, and this is what they've offered?
Honestly the old boyz didn't NEED a replacement.
there would've been other awesome stuff that GW could've updated in there.. (a biker waaaghboss or a modular MA warboss / bigmek)
Vatsetis wrote: Well Da Boyz (Orks) cannot compete with Da Kustum Boyz (Adeptus Astartes)... Another step forward towards the Space Marine supremacy.
GW need to create an NPC faction badge so that non Astartes players can finally get the message of whats their actual role in the " Warhammer Hobby".
Another reason I would not play my favorite army in yet another edition of 40K. This is exactly the kind of treatment that nearly pushed my out of this game, thank the maker for 8th. 7th edition garbage, never again. I can't see whay any one would buy into a mistreated npc faction unless they simply didn't know any better.
If GW can't give every faction a meaningful showing on the table on any given day then what's the point of giving them money.
Has anyone even tried the nu-Boys fixed load outs at all?
Fixed load outs is a larger issue than monopost-ish models.
Galas wrote: I have to say, as much as I love old boyz (I had a greenskin army for fantasy and the design was equal for bot), this new orks look so much better.
A total shame that they are monopose and useless as a basis for building an army.
One of the main arguments against new boyz was the inevitable price hike making starting one of the most expensive armies in the game even less attractive. Looking at price tag of beast snagga boyz containing two sprues, I don't think these fears were unfounded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goose LeChance wrote: I know you're upset because this isn't going the way you want it to and your trying to bait a thread lock but can you please calm down?
I won't be shutting up
I'm merely calling out dumb opinions for what they are. So, are you still not going to explain how your argument doesn't make the squiggoth horrible? Or is that inconvenient for your conspiracy theory?
Galas wrote: I have to say, as much as I love old boyz (I had a greenskin army for fantasy and the design was equal for bot), this new orks look so much better.
A total shame that they are monopose and useless as a basis for building an army.
One of the main arguments against new boyz was the inevitable price hike making starting one of the most expensive armies in the game even less attractive. Looking at price tag of beast snagga boyz containing two sprues, I don't think these fears were unfounded.
Hypothetically, if new Boyz were released with 3 sprues covering all options at the typical £31 per box, then by using the same discount ratios as the other Combat Patrol sets the Ork box would not have included the Dread or Koptas. What we've ended up with is actually a decent compromise. New Ork players get a better value starter box but there's also an incentive for people not to break them up on ebay and cut into sales of the separate kits.
In the long run everyone wins, because lowering the cost of entry for Orks as a faction means more players, more sales, and more reason for GW to keep the range up to date.
Goose LeChance wrote: Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?
Crimson wrote: It might be hard to grasp, but some people actually have no agenda, and understand that GW is just a company that produces some great stuff and some not so great stuff. And then you only buy the stuff you like.
Is it really lowering the entry point cost though? dreads are not really used, not sure about the HQ, but the mounted ones seems to be prefared. The boys are what they are. Real ork armies on the other hand run 6+ buggies, 2+ flyers, 2 units of komandos with rest being flavour like rigs, jump boys etc A good patrol box would be something like a buggy, unit of komados , 10 grots and a character people actually use.
Most brand new Ork players starting from scratch aren't looking up the latest cutting edge net list and building around that. We just want to paint some cool Orks.
Especially when many new players might not even reach 2k points of painted models before the next major meta shift.
yukishiro1 wrote: In this case, each monopose model is unique (of the 10, 20 are included but that's just two sets of the 10 unique models). So there's not really anything to include multiples of. If you mean who decided that of the 10 how many were goin to have sluggas and how many choppas I don't think anybody knows that. But whoever did decide that clearly wasn't thinking of actually playing the game when they made that decision.
Yes, but isn't it just as likely that instead of making that decision for "artistic reasons", or "models first, rules second" as you put it, the decision was made for other reasons, such as those detailed by The_Scotsman and XTTZ? Less artistic reasons and more marketing, production, or monetary. So the blame is not so much on the model designers than on those who decide what to do with the designs once they're done?
To be clear, I wasn't saying it was the fault of the modelers either way. It's not their fault GW runs their business in the nonsensical (from a game design perspective - if they really are just a miniatures company, not a game company, it sorta makes sense) manner they do in terms of making models first and then giving them rules second. They're just doing the job they're told to do - and in general they produce much better results than any other section of the company, though again that's perhaps partially explainable by the fact that they're given freedom, while the rules writers are stuck writing rules for models whether they have a role for them or not.
New players generally don't have a clue what "real Ork armies" look like and they don't need to. To get started you need a bunch of basic dudes, big thing and a boss and Ork Combat Patrol gives you exactly that. If you swappped Deff Dread with Nobz, you would have pretty much Assault on Black Reach half.
yukishiro1 wrote: In this case, each monopose model is unique (of the 10, 20 are included but that's just two sets of the 10 unique models). So there's not really anything to include multiples of. If you mean who decided that of the 10 how many were goin to have sluggas and how many choppas I don't think anybody knows that. But whoever did decide that clearly wasn't thinking of actually playing the game when they made that decision.
Yes, but isn't it just as likely that instead of making that decision for "artistic reasons", or "models first, rules second" as you put it, the decision was made for other reasons, such as those detailed by The_Scotsman and XTTZ? Less artistic reasons and more marketing, production, or monetary. So the blame is not so much on the model designers than on those who decide what to do with the designs once they're done?
To be clear, I wasn't saying it was the fault of the modelers either way. It's not their fault GW runs their business in the nonsensical (from a game design perspective - if they really are just a miniatures company, not a game company, it sorta makes sense) manner they do in terms of making models first and then giving them rules second. They're just doing the job they're told to do - and in general they produce much better results than any other section of the company, though again that's perhaps partially explainable by the fact that they're given freedom, while the rules writers are stuck writing rules for models whether they have a role for them or not.
Fair. I was mostly commenting on your previous posts on the Chaos Knights and the available options in the Havocs kit, which you seemed to be attributing to the model designers. I think the Chaos Knights problems are mostly due to manufacturing: the need to fit (X) number of models on (Y) number of sprues in a box sized (Z). The same for the Havocs: the designers didn't decide to only include one of the cool new gun they designed, that decision was either done by production or marketing. My apologies if that wasn't your intention.
It would be really interesting to know how much those decisions are made by marketers and/or bean counters vs modelers. Like we know that it's miniatures first, rule second - but is it really bean counters first, miniatures second, rules third? Like do the modelers get a list of instructions from marketing - "we want a unit of space marine heavy infantry that comes 3 to a box, all armed with identical weapons, and it has to fit on X number of sprues" - or does that come later if at all?
Who makes the decision to cut models the way the Chaos Knights are cut up, that makes it impossible to swap bits from one model to another because they're all sliced in different ways? And at what stage is that decision made? Is there that one "that guy" in marketing who always demands they only include one of the new weapon and make kits as restrictive as possible on the ones he has supervision over, while there's another guy who is more hobby-friendly, and that explains why we sometimes get 2020 Slaangors and sometimes get 2019 Troggoths?
As far as I know we've never got any insight into that process.
Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"
yukishiro1 wrote: It would be really interesting to know how much those decisions are made by marketers and/or bean counters vs modelers. Like we know that it's miniatures first, rule second - but is it really bean counters first, miniatures second, rules third? Like do the modelers get a list of instructions from marketing - "we want a unit of space marine heavy infantry that comes 3 to a box, all armed with identical weapons, and it has to fit on X number of sprues" - or does that come later if at all?
Who makes the decision to cut models the way the Chaos Knights are cut up, that makes it impossible to swap bits from one model to another because they're all sliced in different ways? And at what stage is that decision made? Is there that one "that guy" in marketing who always demands they only include one of the new weapon and make kits as restrictive as possible on the ones he has supervision over, while there's another guy who is more hobby-friendly, and that explains why we sometimes get 2020 Slaangors and sometimes get 2019 Troggoths?
As far as I know we've never got any insight into that process.
My guess? It varies. Sometimes marketing requests the designers to make (X), sometimes the designers just make something first. But after that marketing takes over: is it going in a box by itself or a big box with other stuff? If so, is it ETB or not? Can it share sprue space with other miniatures or be by itself for an easier solo release later? Options yes/no? How many sprues? Then production figures it out. But the big decisions are coming from marketing. The designers and production are just doing what they're told to do. The "bean counters" are always the ultimate deciding factor in what we actually get.
Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"
Designer: "Yes sir"
Given that the loss of options seems to coincide with the switch to doing two sprues in boxes that would once have been three sprues I wonder if it's even more incidental than that. HQ says "drop the amount of plastic per box and we save money!" and the design team shrugs their shoulders and gets on with the minimum bits per model theory.
Designers are also hired for their business acumen as well. GW isn't hiring a Francisco Goya to go hide away in a back room and creatively divine works of art that come from pure artistic spirit.
Likely the designers resume presents their skillset as including considerations of materials science and supply chain business fundamentals.
Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"
Designer: "Yes sir"
Given that the loss of options seems to coincide with the switch to doing two sprues in boxes that would once have been three sprues I wonder if it's even more incidental than that. HQ says "drop the amount of plastic per box and we save money!" and the design team shrugs their shoulders and gets on with the minimum bits per model theory.
But then your still looking at Devastators with 12 heavy weapon options, and Havocs with 9, while both kits have 3 sprues. You can explain that discrepancy with the increased size of the new Havocs, but still somebody had to make the decision of: "2 heavy bolters - 1 chaincannon, yeah, that sounds right". That's marketing.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly the old boyz didn't NEED a replacement.
there would've been other awesome stuff that GW could've updated in there.. (a biker waaaghboss or a modular MA warboss / bigmek)
come to mind...
These here boyz are just annoying in a way.
I honestly don't think the boyz have been replaced. They are still on the GW website and my guess is that they will stay there until they make a kit that can actually make 10 strong of slugga or shoota. In my mind the new kit is in similar vein to the S2D Start Collecting kit: There to reinforce, but not to replace.
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
GK purgators, for example. Cant take 4 psycanons, 4 incinerators or psilancers per squads. But there is only one of each per sprue.
Same with GK paladins and purificators.
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
Karol wrote:GK purgators, for example. Cant take 4 psycanons, 4 incinerators or psilancers per squads. But there is only one of each per sprue.
Same with GK paladins and purificators.
Ok, so that's one. And judging from this:
Lord Damocles wrote:The current Strike Squad box has 4 psycannons, 2 incinerators, and 2 psilencers.
(Note that the webstore description is wrong, because it was never updated from when they were 5 models to a box).
Grey Knights troops have more heavy weapons options than their actual heavy weapons squads? Weird.
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
You get two psycannons and incinerators per sprue IIRC, which means you get 4 for a box of 10. You do only get one psilencer for some reason, though, so 2 per box of 10, and you can take 4 of any per 5 purgators if you build them that way.
edit: Just checked, it's actually 2 psycannons and 1 incinerator and 1 psilencer per sprue.
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
Interesting. When were Devastators recut?
I want to say 7th?
Ok, so that's why I'm getting 7th edition as their release date when I look it up. Thanks.
Grey Knights troops have more heavy weapons options than their actual heavy weapons squads? Weird.
The Strike Squad box makes Strikes, Purgators, Interceptors, and Purifiers.
Ok, I see that now. And two sets of sprues per box.
yukishiro1 wrote:You get two psycannons and incinerators per sprue IIRC, which means you get 4 for a box of 10. You do only get one psilencer for some reason, though, so 2 per box of 10, and you can take 4 of any per 5 purgators if you build them that way.
edit: Just checked, it's actually 2 psycannons and 1 incinerator and 1 psilencer per sprue.
So, 2 per box, 2 $60 boxes gets you enough for a full squad of them. So, again, only CSM need 4 $55 boxes of Havocs for a full squad of chaincannons. When did the Grey Knights box go to 10 models per box?
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
Interesting. When were Devastators recut?
I want to say 7th?
Yeah 7th was the edition Devastators got access to Grav Cannons, rather than them just being available on Centurions, which was 6th iirc.
Incidentally 7th was mytseriously when our local leading Tyranid player quit, since Grav Cannons were the specific answer to monstrous creatures.
Dysartes wrote: What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?
The current Devastators are from 7th aren't they? Havocs are 2019. But Retributors are 2020-2021? and have 2 of each heavy weapon. The one chaincannon is the red herring. Does any other heavy weapons team have less than two of each of their options? Not troops, elites, or fast attack. Heavy weapons teams. Any others? I can't think of anything Imperial or Chaos. Maybe something Xenos?
Historical tidbit: before it was recut, the Dev kit had 2x HB, LC, PC, but only one MM and ML. The MM being the big deal, as most SM players had a zillion MLs from all their tac squads. But if you wanted a lot of melta? Buy a lot of boxes. (Or trade, 3rd party, etc)
Interesting. When were Devastators recut?
I want to say 7th?
Yeah 7th was the edition Devastators got access to Grav Cannons, rather than them just being available on Centurions, which was 6th iirc.
Incidentally 7th was mytseriously when our local leading Tyranid player quit, since Grav Cannons were the specific answer to monstrous creatures.
Grav guns were 6th edition's reason to buy more tac squads. “We know all the marine players already own twice as many tactical marines as they can fit into a list, but here is a new overpowered gun you are going to want.” Alternatively, you could get them in the new sternguard kit (which was 5 guys for $50, but also an awesome kit packed with extras)
Who needs a while new line of marine kits when you can get the same results just by adding a single bit to a recut sprue.
Insectum7 wrote: Incidentally 7th was mytseriously when our local leading Tyranid player quit, since Grav Cannons were the specific answer to monstrous creatures.
He'd be more annoyed now, as the specific answer to monstrous creatures in 8th/9th is "basically anything".
Insectum7 wrote: Incidentally 7th was mytseriously when our local leading Tyranid player quit, since Grav Cannons were the specific answer to monstrous creatures.
He's be more annoyed now, as the specific answer to monstrous creatures in 8th/9th is "basically anything".
yeah. . . Vehicles too. The new wound chart is a definite downgrade. At least MCs aren't managing 2++ toenail cover saves anymore.
Insectum7 wrote: At least MCs aren't managing 2++ toenail cover saves anymore.
But we have to instead contend with LOS cover rules that make this Hive Tyrant untargetable, but this Hive Tyrant completely visible.
Lol, beautiful illustrations . To be perfectly honest I'm totally fine with that aspect of the current paradigm, aside from things like wingtips being targetable.
The building is more than 5" tall and obscuring, so anything (non-titanic) not within the building area but behind it is invisible, even if the actual model is higher than 5".
BUT that only covers things on the Y axis. If you can see the tip of a claw hanging out to the sides, you can shoot at it no problem.
If it sticks out of the top of a ruin, it will be obscured because obscuring terrain has "infinite" height.
If it sticks out to the side, it will not be obscured and exactly the same as out in the open.
That's what you get when you try to make terrain rules both abstract and realistic at the same time. Still a better solution than the last four editions combined.
Well, I guess then you need to shut up since I don't mind a good model being mono-pose and I am clearly following your advice.
Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?
"I can't be wrong! You must be the ones that are wrong! Who paid you to not have he same incoherent and self-contradicing opinion as me!"
I know you're upset because this isn't going the way you want it to and your trying to bait a thread lock but can you please calm down?
I won't be shutting up
I don’t know what your reading but so far this whole thread is you whining that you don’t like the new models and others saying they do. And you hating on GW. We get it but you aren’t “winning” any arguments here.
Actual supposed facts,
Monopose doesn’t mean singular pose or only one pose possible apparently. It means no chance to reposition at the waist, unless it’s admech or genestealer cults, then it’s fine. But DEFINITELY not marines, they must have a waist or be monopose regardless of the number of poses possible.
The new ORK boyz are actually monopose. Push to fit.
The old ORK boyz are still available. Not monopose. (Even got a waist joint that can be positioned as unrealistically as you like).
Some people like one style, others the other, some just like cool models.
I don’t work for or own shares in GW. I just like their products. Even the new boyz.
According to the poll most people agree with me and not you. Doesn’t make you wrong, just in the minority.
I am with you on the former, but must disagree on the latter. I am assembling some of the new Flayed Ones, and they are the most tedious, finicky kits to assemble I have ever seen from GWS. The 6 armed cowboy necron guy was not as fiddly, but certainly much more complex than any previous Necrons.
They are beautiful, sure... but very much not easier to assemble, let alone "much easier to assemble".
Somehow GW models are getting more monopose but also more complicated to put together. It's genius! Haters gonna hate.
... yes? The old necrons had preassembled legs, often; a nearly push-fit torso, the arms and wrists had a pin and socket setup, and the head just went on. A Necron warrior was 6 pieces that were very simple to assemble and nearly foolproof.
The Flayed One I just worked on is 11 pieces, and the fitment is very different - like, the legs are kind of a raised area that just barely fits into an indentation, but it's very smooth surfacing so you can easily screw it up, and then the model will not be standing straight. It's not my first rodeo so I'm doing lots of dry-fitting to make sure it's right before I apply glue. I'm not even sure this is a complaint, per se - I like building models so more challenge is kinda OK - but they are substantially more difficult to assemble than before, not easier.
I didn't make the argument they're getting more monopose, Necron Warriors (for example) were already basically monopose anyway.
Also, you're saying haters going to hate as a response to me saying in that the models are more beautiful, so I don't even know where that came from. I don't have any real issues with "monopose" as a concept, if it's made of plastic it can be easily cut and reposed so whatever really on that front.
. To be perfectly honest I'm totally fine with that aspect of the current paradigm, aside from things like wingtips being targetable.
