How do they get people to buy stuff? By making stuff for people to buy.

You're making up all these terms 'faction stratagems', 'detachment strategems', etc.

We know about a page of rules, 6 strats, and 4 enhancements. That's it. You replace if you want to use a different detachment. Fin.

Maybe some people will buy new stuff just because. But no one is going to say, I want to buy 15 assault centurions, 9 voidweavers or 5 NDKs, just because the models exist.

The page of rules is in the index. As soon as you start getting codex the rules will no longer be "one page", which GW did say in a such a way that it sounded as if they ment a double spread one page.

There are going to be faction strats, there are going to be detachment, old subfaction, strats and GW said there will be stuff for heroes/warlords. You think that if codex BA comes out it is not going to have specific BA relics, stratagems etc? It will have those, and it will have those "army mostly out of DC", "army mostly out of sang guard" detachments too. each with its own set of rules, relics and stratagems. Now those detachments, which look like todays subfactions, will probably not use the regular stuff. So there isn't going to be any Gladius Death Company detachment of BA.

Ok, well, I guess we'll find out. Make a note to review once we have a codex.

Also I hope you not that your example of "pushed" units are from 8th.

You want examples of "pushed" models from 9th? Voidweavers, the entire Votan Line where people printed their armies and then GW changed the rules, some even pre orders stuff from actual GW. NDKS being a +5, later +4 option for GK. Dragoons for ad mecha, and their flyers too. Karkin are so good that not only is GW out of stock, but people also bought out recasts and even expensive GW side games just to have a few squads.


But you are right, after the first non core marine book, we are all going to know how the initial 5-6 books in 10th are going to look like. IMO GW with the system they are putting up right now, and how similar systems work in AoS. Would be stupid to not multiply detachments, sub faction etc rules and put them behind a pay wall.

Ah and because I don't have mentioned it. I don't think the whole thing would be bad. Just a regular normal GW thing, they do with their other games too.

Votann who were nerfed heavily BEFORE RELEASE?
Yes. They were so pushed.

Your joking right, the leaks come alway from GW, the rules Votan were given were circulating 1-2 months in advance. Here the recast forges were running hot making Vottan stuff. Same way the new IG box was being reprinted, alongside the kasarkin. And the orders were not mostly coming from people in Poland, I can tell you that.

Karol wrote:
Your joking right, the leaks come alway from GW, the rules Votan were given were circulating 1-2 months in advance. Here the recast forges were running hot making Vottan stuff. Same way the new IG box was being reprinted, alongside the kasarkin. And the orders were not mostly coming from people in Poland, I can tell you that.

Yes. The rules released early-and then got nerfed before general release of the models.

Karol wrote:
Your joking right, the leaks come alway from GW, the rules Votan were given were circulating 1-2 months in advance. Here the recast forges were running hot making Vottan stuff. Same way the new IG box was being reprinted, alongside the kasarkin. And the orders were not mostly coming from people in Poland, I can tell you that.

I'm pretty sure GW didn't push Votann or Kasarkin to give the recasters a way to make money. If they were pushing things, they would have ample stock available for purchase.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. The rules released early-and then got nerfed before general release of the models.

Yeah. It would be interesting perhaps to identify what the longest-running power unit of 9th was, but the last few years have been fairly poor for things being "pushed" - because GW step in and nerf them so quickly. A certain mix of DE stuff (Wracks for instance) through 2021 perhaps?

GW can't very easily "push" things if they are OP for about a month - or in the case of Votann, never if you didn't proxy. I mean what's the Voidweaver timeline? Codex released on 5th March - after fairly muted commentary from the professional circuit. Becomes more or less universal in Tournaments next weekend and is clearly too strong. Much crying up to Adepticon 4 weekends later. GW goes "yeah seems a bit good and we'll be pulling back" on 4th April (i.e. the monday after). They then nerf them with the dataslate released 10 days later.

Tyranids went through something similar. Anyone who rushed out to buy say 2 Maleceptors ended up looking a bit silly.

If you want to see things "pushed" you have to go back in time. To the era where GW would release broken stuff - and then just leave it for half a decade. With the only release being the fact they'd be rolling out "even more broken" stuff over that time, that might eventually change the meta.

I think people overestimate the amount of people who are pure pay to win. In general I think people overestimate how likely they are to compete on the top tables against the best.

I would also argue that it is generally good for people to burn themselves on thinking they could pay to win in general. I would assume most people who play Warhammer of any sort want it to be a hobby that includes its various aspects and not just tryhards competing on who can buy the most of the best units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

If you want to see things "pushed" you have to go back in time. To the era where GW would release broken stuff - and then just leave it for half a decade. With the only release being the fact they'd be rolling out "even more broken" stuff over that time, that might eventually change the meta.

I think the only unit that has some quote from an ex-employee about being pushed was the Wraithknight in 6th. That unit was also bonkers if you think about it.

Ultimately people squeal in this internet age and with the churn at the GW office I'd expect more tattletales than not. Hell, Peachy revealed some of his work on his channel and most of it sounded more like incompetence than anything else.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Votann who were nerfed heavily BEFORE RELEASE?
Yes. They were so pushed.

Yeah. GW got worried they might not sell any models with tournaments banning them...

OP rules sell. But inability to use models makes sure try hards aren't buying them. Why buy model you can't use?

That was emergency when their marketing ploy was too obvious and was about to spectacularly blow up in their face.

They were "banned" from like 3 tournaments, all of which were before the LoV book went to general release right?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the only unit that has some quote from an ex-employee about being pushed was the Wraithknight in 6th. That unit was also bonkers if you think about it.

Ultimately people squeal in this internet age and with the churn at the GW office I'd expect more tattletales than not. Hell, Peachy revealed some of his work on his channel and most of it sounded more like incompetence than anything else.

Yeah. We've had enough tattletales to know GW see rules writing as the bottom of the hierarchy.
"Makes me cool rules."
"Here you go."
"Sure these look great."
"Don't you want to test them?"
"...? I'm trying to organise an international business with thousands of staff and hundreds of millions of turnover. Do you really think I care what the D-weapon rule does? I'm sure its fine."

My main point is that "pushing" requires time. The number of people who are obsessively pay to win is tiny. But if say Wraith Knights are going to be the best Eldar unit for 2 years - its not a huge imposition for people deep down the competitive foodchain to find £70 and buy one. Same if say Riptides are going to be best thing Tau have (+/-) for 7 years. A Tau player can find the time and money to end up buying 2-3.

The reason 9th has been the tournament edition is that they are clearly "trying" (with however many issues along the way because codexes gotta creep) to meet up with the 40k Professional Circuit which are focused on rules and power. Hence why problems get picked up in a month. Or even before the models get dropped like Votann. Presumably because they think its good marketing. A happy tournament scene builds hype which encourages everyone else to buy in. Even if in practice the vast majority of players never saw 9 Voidweavers on the table - or even knew what a Cthonian Beserks is - or why it would be massively overpowered at 22 points.

 catbarf wrote:
We now play Battlefleet Gothic, Grimdark Future, and Alpha Strike instead.

Out of curiosity, do you play this with boilerplate rules or with house rules? I'm planning to make the jump from Classic and try AS soon, but the ranges seem a bit wonky to me (ie. how a Locust or other fastboi can cross a 4x4 table in 2-3 moves) and I've been wondering if using one of the "halve all ranges" house rules would make for a better experience.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They were "banned" from like 3 tournaments, all of which were before the LoV book went to general release right?

Yes, the "gw nerfed them because events banned factions whose book isn't on general sale, like the events do for all armies in that state" tune is one often misinterpreted by pretty much everyone.

Tournaments don't impact sales as heavily as people pretend, 99% of the playerbase will be at home/clubs and won't care. What they might care about is the bad press however. None of that suggests that banning them in those exact circumstances actually mattered to the eventual outcome however.

Not every tournament bans new book by default. Plenty allow.

So when tournaments that don't allow new book when they normally allow...

Add to that push for more as nobody wants to see army with wr 80%+ in tournaments...

GW isn't smartest but even they can see the obvious when it's fired at them with 252mm artirelly. That's too hard to not miss.

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Votann who were nerfed heavily BEFORE RELEASE?
Yes. They were so pushed.

Yeah. GW got worried they might not sell any models with tournaments banning them...

OP rules sell. But inability to use models makes sure try hards aren't buying them. Why buy model you can't use?

That was emergency when their marketing ploy was too obvious and was about to spectacularly blow up in their face.

New models sell. People were lining up to buy squats the second they were teased without any rules whatsoever.

Ask yourself if you've ever bought a model, JUST because of OP rules. I know I haven't. And if the forum is to be believed most people here don't either or they're pretty much hypocrites. I would have bought the Wraithknight regardless of rules, because it looks so friggin' cool.

Top players use second hand, print, borrow, and use the prize support they have to build armies. They're mostly college age kids that don't actually have a ton of money to chase the meta. The youtube personalities might now, but that's like Mani's thing.

Altruizine wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
We now play Battlefleet Gothic, Grimdark Future, and Alpha Strike instead.

Out of curiosity, do you play this with boilerplate rules or with house rules? I'm planning to make the jump from Classic and try AS soon, but the ranges seem a bit wonky to me (ie. how a Locust or other fastboi can cross a 4x4 table in 2-3 moves) and I've been wondering if using one of the "halve all ranges" house rules would make for a better experience.

AS is really best played on a 6x4 table with the default rules. But we play on hexes, dividing all inch values in half to get the same values as Classic. With the hexes being 1.25" across, a 4x3 hex mat provides ample room for maneuver in a lance-on-lance game, being nearly identical to a two-mapsheet setup for Classic. The only houserule we currently use is an alternative attack resolution rule where instead of rolling 2D6 and you either hit for full damage or miss for none, we roll 1 die for each point of damage on the profile plus a single 'pilot die' that gets added to each.

Death From Above Wargaming has a pretty popular set of houserules you might want to check out, which includes the above attack system and that halved-distance compressed scale for hexless gameplay. There are some other tweaks in there too that we're planning to try out, but the core gameplay is a straightforward translation of Classic to fast-play, so how much you have to houserule it really depends on what sorts of complaints you have about Classic.

Karol wrote:
Maybe some people will buy new stuff just because. But no one is going to say, I want to buy 15 assault centurions, 9 voidweavers or 5 NDKs, just because the models exist.

The vast majority of people that buy 40K models do literally that. Tournament players that metachase are the minority of buyers.

As with most things 40K I feel there's a middle ground between 'buy only meta models' and 'buy literally whatever looks cool with no regard for rules'.

If you look at Tyranids players in 8th Ed, there were a lot of Hive Guard being fielded even among casual players. You didn't need to be a hardcore tournament player to recognize that good units can help your list.

Personally, I'm not a competitive player at all, but getting stomped by my buddies just wasn't fun, so I bought some Hive Guard to prop up an otherwise underwhelming army.

And conversely I've seen a lot of people online steer newbies away from models that seem cool, but have awful rules.

Is GW aware of this? Probably. Do they deliberately skew rules to promote certain things? Dunno. I'd lean towards 'no' given the sheer inconsistency of power levels on new releases.

 catbarf wrote:
As with most things 40K I feel there's a middle ground between 'buy only meta models' and 'buy literally whatever looks cool with no regard for rules'.

If you look at Tyranids players in 8th Ed, there were a lot of Hive Guard being fielded even among casual players. You didn't need to be a hardcore tournament player to recognize that good units can help your list.

Personally, I'm not a competitive player at all, but getting stomped by my buddies just wasn't fun, so I bought some Hive Guard to prop up an otherwise underwhelming army.

And conversely I've seen a lot of people online steer newbies away from models that seem cool, but have awful rules.

Is GW aware of this? Probably. Do they deliberately skew rules to promote certain things? Dunno. I'd lean towards 'no' given the sheer inconsistency of power levels on new releases.

Hive guard are one of the survivor bias things. We know they did well, because they did appear, but no one ever went to look at lower ranked Nids to see if they had them or not. And we're talking perhaps 200 to 300 players in the tournament scene for those higher placings.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hive guard are one of the survivor bias things. We know they did well, because they did appear, but no one ever went to look at lower ranked Nids to see if they had them or not. And we're talking perhaps 200 to 300 players in the tournament scene for those higher placings.

Er... I explicitly said I wasn't just talking about high-level competitive play; it's not like it's a total mystery what casual players buy. Go on Reddit or any of the Facebook groups and look at army shots from a couple of years ago and you'll see Hive Guard in more armies than not, even among players who will never attend a tournament.

Unclear the best "quality" shooting in the book is survivorship bias. Put behind Polystyrene Brick. Plink away for the game unless they get around to kill you. No issues with ignoring LOS shooting back then.

Devilgants and Dakkafexs were okay too I guess - but they were easier to take out because you have to expose them. Also shorter range - which I feel was more an issue in 8th because the missions/ITC facilitated gunline play much more than 9th has. Finally lots of AP- could run into problems with certain armies if players just wouldn't roll any 1s.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hive guard are one of the survivor bias things. We know they did well, because they did appear, but no one ever went to look at lower ranked Nids to see if they had them or not. And we're talking perhaps 200 to 300 players in the tournament scene for those higher placings.

Er... I explicitly said I wasn't just talking about high-level competitive play; it's not like it's a total mystery what casual players buy. Go on Reddit or any of the Facebook groups and look at army shots from a couple of years ago and you'll see Hive Guard in more armies than not, even among players who will never attend a tournament.

Yes, better rules will sell more models, but that's not the impetus for everyone. How many people putting out HG had them already? Did you buy 9 or did you pause a bit?

If you go to eBay right now and look at sold listings for Hive Guard they're selling almost daily even when they're not all that great.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hive guard are one of the survivor bias things. We know they did well, because they did appear, but no one ever went to look at lower ranked Nids to see if they had them or not. And we're talking perhaps 200 to 300 players in the tournament scene for those higher placings.

Er... I explicitly said I wasn't just talking about high-level competitive play; it's not like it's a total mystery what casual players buy. Go on Reddit or any of the Facebook groups and look at army shots from a couple of years ago and you'll see Hive Guard in more armies than not, even among players who will never attend a tournament.

Yes, better rules will sell more models, but that's not the impetus for everyone. How many people putting out HG had them already? Did you buy 9 or did you pause a bit?

If you go to eBay right now and look at sold listings for Hive Guard they're selling almost daily even when they're not all that great.

There's a vast gulf between "everyone" and "not just the top competitors".

And who knows? Maybe people are buying them now for Tyrant Guard, since it's a dual kit.

I think the issue is "lackluster rules don't sell" more than "good rules do"

There have definitely been releases for my armies that are solidly "meh" that I would probably buy if I ever thought they would see the table.

My shelves are too full to buy more models just to paint and build them and shelve them.

So I won't buy a model *simply because* it has good rules, but I also will sometimes not buy a model because it has trash rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, better rules will sell more models, but that's not the impetus for everyone.

There are pure collectors who will buy a model based on its fluff or aesthetics and don't give a damn about the rules.

There are extreme competitors who are all about the meta and have no investment in the fluff or hobby beyond gaming.

And then you've got everyone else in between, where they might pass on a cool model if it's a dumpster fire in-game, or buy a model that doesn't otherwise grab them because it seems useful.

I really don't think you need to do extensive market research to discover that group #3 exists, just look around at how people on social media talk about ugly-but-effective or cool-but-useless units. GW's still selling Biovores and it ain't because everyone loves the model.

Tyel wrote:


GW can't very easily "push" things if they are OP for about a month

Spoiler:

- or in the case of Votann, never if you didn't proxy. I mean what's the Voidweaver timeline? Codex released on 5th March - after fairly muted commentary from the professional circuit. Becomes more or less universal in Tournaments next weekend and is clearly too strong. Much crying up to Adepticon 4 weekends later. GW goes "yeah seems a bit good and we'll be pulling back" on 4th April (i.e. the monday after). They then nerf them with the dataslate released 10 days later.

Tyranids went through something similar. Anyone who rushed out to buy say 2 Maleceptors ended up looking a bit silly.

If you want to see things "pushed" you have to go back in time. To the era where GW would release broken stuff - and then just leave it for half a decade. With the only release being the fact they'd be rolling out "even more broken" stuff over that time, that might eventually change the meta.

Snip.

A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

That's why stuff almost always goes out of stock on release, but almost never does again unless it's about to be discontinued; something GW has a schedule for way in advance, so they have literally years to slow / stop production and make sure stock runs dry.

And that's not to even comment on how things remain broken for significantly longer than a month. DE were the meta setters and "the" army to beat for the better part of a year. Clowns were also ripping scalps for at least half a year.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Tyel wrote:


GW can't very easily "push" things if they are OP for about a month

Spoiler:

- or in the case of Votann, never if you didn't proxy. I mean what's the Voidweaver timeline? Codex released on 5th March - after fairly muted commentary from the professional circuit. Becomes more or less universal in Tournaments next weekend and is clearly too strong. Much crying up to Adepticon 4 weekends later. GW goes "yeah seems a bit good and we'll be pulling back" on 4th April (i.e. the monday after). They then nerf them with the dataslate released 10 days later.

Tyranids went through something similar. Anyone who rushed out to buy say 2 Maleceptors ended up looking a bit silly.

If you want to see things "pushed" you have to go back in time. To the era where GW would release broken stuff - and then just leave it for half a decade. With the only release being the fact they'd be rolling out "even more broken" stuff over that time, that might eventually change the meta.

Snip.

A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

That's why stuff almost always goes out of stock on release, but almost never does again unless it's about to be discontinued; something GW has a schedule for way in advance, so they have literally years to slow / stop production and make sure stock runs dry.

And that's not to even comment on how things remain broken for significantly longer than a month. DE were the meta setters and "the" army to beat for the better part of a year. Clowns were also ripping scalps for at least half a year.

The number of incorrect or unsupported things in this post are nearly too numerous to mention.

Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

I think we can all document the fact that various items on the GW site go in and out of availability on a frequent basis. We definitely know things go out of stock on release weekend but become available again within weeks or months.

And we know GW is much better at correcting issues with recent release codexes than they are with older codexes that they botched implementation of Dataslates and MFMs on.

that is what GW once said about how and why they release things the way they do
because plastic kits sell on release window and if something does not sell during that time, it never will

the reason why rules and models are released together, why a line is split up on several release windows etc.


and they are not better at correcting issues recently than in the past, they are just faster if they don't want to wait on something printed

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

Be that as it may i still think most hype sales go to painters/modellers/buy everything types before cutthroat gamers. At least judging by social media (which is always a fools errand i know as most people simply dont use social media regularly)

hype sales go to everyone who is hyped for whatever reason
and most of those hype sales go on the pile and are never used

hence there are less sales without the hype as in that case only those who really want to use that specific unit/model (be it gaming, painting, conversion) are buying it

 morganfreeman wrote:
A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

I imagine the rate of sale is typically highest straight after release. But I'm suspect this represents the majority of sales that kit will ever do.

I guess its covered by the "second patch in the sun" clause - but do you really think Wracks for instance sold more in September/October 2014 than the in the subsequent 8~ years? Do stores which sold say 100 copies of a kit on release, then proceed to only sell an average of 1 of that kit a month from then on?

The rate clearly falls - and so managing stock becomes easier (although we still regularly see things go out of stock as said) - but not to that extent I think.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

In the reports the sales split was 60% new releases and 40% old stock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Be that as it may i still think most hype sales go to painters/modellers/buy everything types before cutthroat gamers. At least judging by social media (which is always a fools errand i know as most people simply dont use social media regularly)

Literally $500+ dioramas for Golden Demon.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

In the reports the sales split was 60% new releases and 40% old stock.

And this proves nothing about particular kits sales history. Also, how long is something a new release according to this report of sales split? 1 Week? 1 Month? 1 Year?

Oh, I agree. To me it highlights that the best way GW makes money is by continually getting people to pay attention, which means more frequent releases. A codex is just an excuse to get people who might have quit to come back and take a look and see if their army got any fun new toys.

GW's mishandling of codexes is a happy accident to sales at times, but there is no evidence of ongoing manipulation to that effect.

A codex with good internal balance gets people to come back and dip into any unit in the book - not just the OP ones.
A game with good external balance gets people to consider options that work in the meta for that timeframe.

The more balanced things are the more kits people would consider. GW does just fine though with crummy balance, because there's a legion of people who buy models just because.

Tyel wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

I imagine the rate of sale is typically highest straight after release. But I'm suspect this represents the majority of sales that kit will ever do.

As has been said, GW themselves have stated that kits earn a majority of their sales right out of the gate. While none of us here have an access to the internal sales and revenue data of GW, we can pretty easily reference what do we know about things in similar spheres or nerd culture. Riot Games, for example, has outright stated that champion skins that aren’t profitable in the first WEEK of their release will never turn a profit. League of Legends isn’t a tabletop war game by any means, it fulfills a similar niche in nerdom. Video games in general (and also movies) see a very similar trend. And while board games have a bit more longevity than both of those, they also lean heavily on their initial sales to turn an overall profit.

So while there are some extrapolations made in my post, they’re pretty reasonable (giving GW products a couple of months to harness that initial fervor instead of a weekend). While it’s possible that GW miniature are the only piece of nerd-targeted luxury entertainment product which doesn’t make most of its sales immediately, it’s also possible that I’m going doing to die in my bed tonight from a plane falling out of the sky. And while I acknowledge both possibilities, I’m still going to sleep soundly tonight.

ccs wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.

You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.

PenitentJake wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
]unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself

Neither is this the fault of the current edition, nor will a new edition change this.

The inflexibility of other people in your play space has never been GW's fault.

No combat patrol will be a completely different set of data sheets for the units and all of the rules still apply. That is assuming the rules themselves aren't different for combat patrol. It is borderline a different game entirely. This will be confusing for people who play a bunch of games with one data sheet only to have that data sheet change when they move to higher points levels.

That's not entirely true, though it is mostly true. AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Aash wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Exactly!
In 9th edition, stratagems, detachments, terrain traits, and CP stuff are all Advanced Rules.

We play the Basic game, it works great for us.

I think theyve always differentiated between basic (movement, shooting, combat) and advanced (the rest). Or certainly in more editions than not.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aash wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Exactly!
In 9th edition, stratagems, detachments, terrain traits, and CP stuff are all Advanced Rules.

We play the Basic game, it works great for us.

@Aash yes but you can't say that ALL the rules related to transports are optional when almost every start collecting box comes with a transport. These aren't optional, these are required. Smite and perials are also in the Advanced Rules. Charging over terrain, objective markers, objective secured.

These are not optional. They are required to play the game, and if you actually read all the "Advanced Rules" most of them, if you left even some of them out, would cripple some armies, others are just unfieldable, no mechanized infantry armies at all, melee armies would be so terrible it wouldn't be funny. Other armies would become so crazy powerful it wouldn't be funny. Imagine never modifying characteristics or using a damage tables.

@Blndmage yes and so are any modifiers to units as well as any effects from terrain.

Let me give an example. Rather then having the basic rule be "terrain exists put what ever you want where ever you want." Make it so there are two types of terrain "raised" and "depression". raised blocks line of sight, depression gives +1 armor save. Those would be the basics then you build from there.

Dai wrote:
I think theyve always differentiated between basic (movement, shooting, combat) and advanced (the rest). Or certainly in more editions than not.

They have but only to denote things that are more complicated not to distinguish between optional rules and required rules.

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
.
@Blndmage yes and so are any modifiers to units as well as any effects from terrain.

Let me give an example. Rather then having the basic rule be "terrain exists put what ever you want where ever you want." Make it so there are two types of terrain "raised" and "depression". raised blocks line of sight, depression gives +1 armor save. Those would be the basics then you build from there.

From the free core rules

Unless the mission you are playing instructs you otherwise, you should feel free to create an exciting battlefield using any terrain features from your collection that you wish. In general, we recommend having one feature on the battlefield for every 12" by 12" area (rounding up). Don’t worry if your battlefield doesn’t match these requirements, but keep in mind that playing on a battlefield that is either a barren wasteland or filled to overflowing with terrain features may give an advantage to one side or the other.

It's not perfect advice, but it's at least some guidance. The one piece per 1sqrft method is constantly reverenced in terrain discussions.

When I said we use the basic rules, I ment the free core rules.