*and also, Warhammer 40K & Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Another poster in a thread about how GWS should release a Horus Heresy line made this comment:

NELS1031 wrote:On Topic: I'd personally like to see some comprehensive xenos releases before they create an expansion thats would focus on an era of lore that is, when you boil it down, marine vs marine. Yes imperial guard and other auxilliary forces played a part, but its essentially about the larger then life Primarch heroes and their legions, at its heart. Plus a series of releases focusing on space marines may prolong the lame as f*** "sphess marinz" joke or that one mod's "Codex: <instert color> marine" previews that have been hammered into unfunniness.

This deserves, perhaps, it's own thread.

A cliche doesn't happen in a vacuum. Specifically, all these people who make these jokes have a rather strong point in how GWS has been over saturating Space Marines© are right.

I looked through all my FW and GWS newsletters to build the release schedule for 2010. There were 44 releases in 2010 for 40k (not counting army books, figure cases, scenery, WHFB, LOTR etc). Out of those, Space Marines© got 25, and everyone else combined got 19. So, while Chaos Space Marines are using the same craptastic metal dreadnought for the last, what, 16 years? - which makes it likely older then the target demographic for the game in which it's used - Space Marines© had 5 different bolter releases. If you're a xeno player, you're taking it in the shorts, month after month.

My apologies to the Tau players for using the pie chart, and not the more appropriate bar graph. The bar graph might have worked better for you, since i could have arranged it to look like a middle finger, and that's what you guys got in 2010; that and nothing else. You're not alone in that. Grey Knights also got nothing, as did Witchhunters. CSM got 1 release, and it was a re-issue that sucked - "Traitors of Chaos".

Do they do this for WHFB too? Is it month after month of Empire releases, while Beastmen haven't had an update since Bill Clinton was in his first term? I'm not a WHFB player, it's a legitimate question.

(A more accurate chart has been composed and is on page 2, but the composition is the same)

Now you can see why I suggested that the putative 6th edition starter set should contain Space Marines and Space Marines as the two armies.

Also, ever since they started this focus on Space Marines, (was it around 3rd ed, 1998?) haven't their 40k sales been in overall decline?

I don't remember it being so Marine biased in 2nd ed, where there was growth.

I'm no WHFB player but I am sure it isn't that lop sided towards any army.

Would GW improve their sales if they focused on the other armies as much as the SM? That's a question worth asking.

I don't think there is any evidence for that, if only because the early 2000s figures are distorted by the inclusion of LoTR. We do not have access to the actual EPOS figures which would show how many of each kit was sold.

It is true that sales figures have been dropping for several years recently, however I don't see why that should be blamed on Space Marines.

Release of a new codex or models for an army generally results in a boost of sales for that faction.

Personally I don't mind that so many SM codexes are released. What I care about is that too few non-SM codexes are released in the same time period.

That's fairly depressing. Obviously Space Marines receive more support, but I had no idea things were so disproportionate. Excellent observation and analysis, nonetheless.

I have no doubt that the trend will continue, however I don;t think things will be as bad this year. So far, we've seen a lot of support for Eldar (FW stuff) and Dark Eldar, getting a long over due codex update, and, as far as GW goes, what seems like a fairly expedited Second and 3rd wave. Hopefully that trend will continue. We're also getting Grey Knights very soon, though if the PDF leak tells us anything, they've been very much "Marine-ized." Normally, I'd take this opportunity to make a snide comment about Matt Ward, but he gets some brownie points here for making it possible to play (what appears to be very viable) dedicated Inquisition lists, despite the adamant reservations of one or two "outspoken" Dakkanauts...

Finally, there are only 2 more Marine Books that can be updated (BT, and DA) and hopefully after that, they'll bring everyone else up to date before going into 6th ed.

I think the more interesting question is: "Why is this a problem?" Obviously, it's perceived as one, and I don;t disagree that it is. Is it that no matter what the variance is between Marine codices, they all still boil down to the same basic statline (especially the 3+ save)? Is it the fluff and design where they are all just slight variations on a theme? If, hypothetically, in addition to all the standard marine books, there was a xenos race that just happened to have the same stateline, but looked completely different, and had unique fluff, would there still be an issue? Is it that Marines are what they are, or that every release for them is viewed as more of the same?

It does kind of suck (I don't play SM, though I do have CSM).

I'm not interested in SM, I don't have any SM models in my CSM army* (even though there are a lot of very nice SM models that I wouldn't mind getting to convert), and on principal I will not buy SM stuff.

I think it would encourage people to start a second army if the xeno lines got more regular releases and updates. At the moment people who start off with SM get more and more goodies each month, get kick ass codexes of which there are always a couple in the first few to be updated for each new edition.

But once their army gets to a certain size, there is not really a lot more for them other than a few new units a year to buy. There is no real incentive to get many of the other xeno factions as they have really old models and don't look like they will be getting new ones in a while, and even if they do get them, it is unlikely they will be updated for a while and for someone used to getting a couple of handfuls of new upgrades a year to switch to an army which is pretty much the same model wise as when it was released is not a lot of fun.

Give the xenos some love, for the good of the game!



* Except for a few bits and pieces I have been given.

Ouze wrote:Do they do this for WHFB too? Is it month after month of Empire releases, while Beastmen haven't had an update since Bill Clinton was in his first term? I'm not a WHFB player, it's a legitimate question.

They don't; WHFB is much more "balanced" in terms of releases. If anything, they've neglected some of their flagship armies (O&G) until recently, as they're getting a new book in a month! In your example, Beastmen just got a new book last year (although it is unfortunately underpowered and since it just came out, they won't be getting a better one for a long time).

Besides O&G, the next most neglected army was Tomb Kings, which is the next release book (already confirmed by GW's Incoming emails). Ogres and Brettonians are probably those that have been suffering longest after that. Wood Elves just recently became outdated due to the new 8th edition ruleset.

But overall, fantasy support has been balanced in my opinion. I'm not sure why people point to Empire (I guess it has the most background material?) as in my opinion it's most analogous to Imperial Guard. If anything, Warriors of Chaos are the closed to "space marines of fantasy". They are quite popular for similar reasons (great armor, less models, etc).

The SM focus helped drive me out of 40k... I no longer play it. That and the "gateway game" status of the sci-fi branch of warhammer, as opposed to the slightly older crowd that fantasy draws.

I should point out, of course, my methodology was far from perfect. Not from bias, but from laziness. Specifically, the tyranid release and the DE release each out as one release when obviously they both were many separate models. Unfortunately, the newsletters don't always cohesively break down which specific models are in each release, so I counted them as one major release. To keep it fair I did the same as the space marine side: when they had a month which saw 5 different Space Marine transfers released, that counted as one, so long as it was a single newsletter blurb. Blood Angels were 1 release. The bolters were spread out over several months, so that was more then one. If there were more interest I'm sure I could research it more in depth but I doubt the ratios would change much, and work is starting to pick up, so leaving it where it is: Not an exact science but definitely a good rough idea of just how unbalanced it is.

Ouze wrote:Do they do this for WHFB too? Is it month after month of Empire releases, while Beastmen haven't had an update since Bill Clinton was in his first term? I'm not a WHFB player, it's a legitimate question.

Fantasy isn't nearly as lopsided as 40K is.

That said, while Beastmen did get a fairly recent release, it feels extremely token. The Beastman Doombull is the only model that came out in that time that is widely considered to be a decent step up from the previous version. From what I hear the Ungors, Gors, and Bestigors are all thought of as very middling models while the Razorgor and Minotaurs are laughingstocks of the miniature world; the latter only occasionally being forgiven if you paint them so dark you can't see the sculpting. They're still waiting on their second wave, which I expect won't come until the army gets redone just before the next edition of WFB. I feel they're a bit like TK or OG- no one at the studio is really that excited about them so they get the minimum attention needed.

But at least they can count on a release almost every cycle.

I've seen several people indicate that there is an older crowd into WHFB. Tempting. Tomb Kings seem neat. But I don't know if my wallet can afford another massive game like that. Maybe will start a thread in the WHFB asking about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think there is any evidence for that, if only because the early 2000s figures are distorted by the inclusion of LoTR. We do not have access to the actual EPOS figures which would show how many of each kit was sold.

It is true that sales figures have been dropping for several years recently, however I don't see why that should be blamed on Space Marines.

Release of a new codex or models for an army generally results in a boost of sales for that faction.

Personally I don't mind that so many SM codexes are released. What I care about is that too few non-SM codexes are released in the same time period.

The LoTR bubble would have hid the decline, so I would probably mark the early 2000s as the beginning of the drop.

I think there's correlation but as always it may not be the causation. However, it does fly in the face of those who say that Space Marines are what keep the sales up; they have been pushed heavily and coincide with the decline period compared with when they weren't so pushed there was a growth period.

At best, the disproportionate focus on Space Marines does not help at all; at worst it's one of the factors in losing customers.

Commander Endova wrote:That's fairly depressing. Obviously Space Marines receive more support, but I had no idea things were so disproportionate. Excellent observation and analysis, nonetheless.

I have no doubt that the trend will continue, however I don;t think things will be as bad this year. So far, we've seen a lot of support for Eldar (FW stuff) and Dark Eldar, getting a long over due codex update, and, as far as GW goes, what seems like a fairly expedited Second and 3rd wave. Hopefully that trend will continue. We're also getting Grey Knights very soon, though if the PDF leak tells us anything, they've been very much "Marine-ized." Normally, I'd take this opportunity to make a snide comment about Matt Ward, but he gets some brownie points here for making it possible to play (what appears to be very viable) dedicated Inquisition lists, despite the adamant reservations of one or two "outspoken" Dakkanauts...

Finally, there are only 2 more Marine Books that can be updated (BT, and DA) and hopefully after that, they'll bring everyone else up to date before going into 6th ed.

I think the more interesting question is: "Why is this a problem?" Obviously, it's perceived as one, and I don;t disagree that it is. Is it that no matter what the variance is between Marine codices, they all still boil down to the same basic statline (especially the 3+ save)? Is it the fluff and design where they are all just slight variations on a theme? If, hypothetically, in addition to all the standard marine books, there was a xenos race that just happened to have the same stateline, but looked completely different, and had unique fluff, would there still be an issue? Is it that Marines are what they are, or that every release for them is viewed as more of the same?

You may have seen the term MEq used in discussion of army lists, tactics, and Mathshammer threads.

It means Marines and Equivalents, and encompasses everything with a 3+ armour save -- SMs, CSMs, Necrons, GK and SoB (to some extent). One of the key points about beating these armies is to load up on AP2 weapons which ignore their armour save. In other words, you look at an important common factor. Many of these armies are similar in other ways too, of course.

From that perspective, an alien army with the same statline as Sms would not just be an MEq, it would be an SM under another name, and would add nothing to the variety of the game.

I am making the basic assumption that we are looking at this from the game player's point of view.

Fluff is wonderful, but if you want different fluff you can read SF novels. The game isn't about fluff.

Models are excellent, but if you want different models you can buy different models for an army. The game isn't about models.

If you want the army to work differently in the game, and provide new challenges, it needs to work differently. And it needs to work significantly differently, not just have access to giant space wolves or terminators as troops or something like that. The game is about rules and differences between armies.

If I want to play a game in which all the armies are nearly the same and have only minor differences between them, I can play Napoleonics. It's not why I want to play 40K.

Yeah I was wondering why nids only was 2% when in fact they had quite few new things in 2010. But nevertheless your exercise is quite interesting and really shows the tendencies.

Marine fans are going to kill me but I would rather see a huge book with all marines and another with all chaos than this multiplication and fllooding of 40k with marines. I wonder if marine players or non nid fans would like to see every year a new book dedicated to a diferent hive fleet ( change the fluff and the colors and list a bit and its done).

If the product sales are declining maybe its time to spread a bit more and be less fanatic about marines... but we dont know the numbers, no one can tell if whats keeping GW sales from falling even further are not in fact the marines.

Johira, the thing is I don't think there was anything sinister involved in that. As far as I can tell, lots of people here were excited about beastmen... and they did get a lot of new plastic kits in their release! The models are great in my opinion. Minotaurs were let down by bad studio paint jobs, I even had that sigged for a while from Kirbinator "GW Minotaurs look great when not painted like ham" .

I'm hearing rumors that the Ghorgon or some such is a likely target for warhammer forge and/or some of the rumors about what GW is doing for fantasy this summer. It's true they haven't followed through on the monster releases, but if they're coming soon I don't fault them much for it. Skaven have gotten the Hellpit Abomination, after all.

The O&G and TK releases are yet to be seen- certainly, GW needs to generate momentum after so few releases following the 8th edition ruleset last year. As far as I can tell everybody's interested in TK. O&G are a staple, and the giant spider is awesome... would've been nice to get more plastic kits but the range is pretty good as it is (it's just their rules that have been terrible ).

So in my opinion, some of that is a bit off-base. As to the poor razorgor... in person it's not bad. So many people go off the "crazy bulging eye painted pic" and pan it. It's a massive hunk of metal in person and actually rather impressive.

My god! I knew there was a problem but not that it was that serious! I really can't see why GW has to keep doing this. As daba pointed out, GW sales are likely to be in decline overall, yes all these space marine releases are good for SM players and potential new players, there are still players, like myself, who don't and never will collect a SM army, and there are even SM players who would normally spend money on their other armies. They've given SM many new codexes, a film and a whole game to themselves recently, surely GW can leave them alone for a bit?!

JOHIRA wrote:Fantasy isn't nearly as lopsided as 40K is.

Yep. Fantasy neglectes a few armies ie WE but in general all armies are balanced and there's an equal spread of them. One thing i like about WHFB is that when i go into my FLGS to play a fantasy game i have no idea what army I'll be facing, whereas with 40K the chances are I'll be playing a SM army of some sort.

RiTides wrote:

Ouze wrote:Do they do this for WHFB too? Is it month after month of Empire releases, while Beastmen haven't had an update since Bill Clinton was in his first term? I'm not a WHFB player, it's a legitimate question.

They don't; WHFB is much more "balanced" in terms of releases. If anything, they've neglected some of their flagship armies (O&G) until recently, as they're getting a new book in a month! In your example, Beastmen just got a new book last year (although it is unfortunately underpowered and since it just came out, they won't be getting a better one for a long time).

Besides O&G, the next most neglected army was Tomb Kings, which is the next release book (already confirmed by GW's Incoming emails). Ogres and Brettonians are probably those that have been suffering longest after that. Wood Elves just recently became outdated due to the new 8th edition ruleset.

O&G was first army book the last 2 edtion and 6 (Orc) and 7 (Goblin) starter armys. I wouldn't say there neglected, but the rest is dead on.

Exactly! Fantasy has a much more diverse spread as far percentages of people taking armies... with the usual factors determining which are more popular (the current "top tier" factions, and those that are easier to collect due to low model count or being in a recent starter set).

As to WE being neglected- I'm all for beating that drum, as I played them through 7th and had to give up on them in 8th, but they only just became out-dated with the new ruleset. The other armies that have long been outdated are getting their updates as we speak, and I'm hoping the last glaring few (ogres and brets, in my opinion, although both are decent with 8th their models are suffering) are not far off.

Edit: Great point Noir, I guess I felt they'd suffered since they were so bad under 7th ed rules (arguably the worst). But it could be due to being released so early in the edition where they hadn't realized what would be powerful yet. Hopefully the same doesn't happen in 8th! It pretty much happened to Beastmen, even though they were released just before the new ruleset.

Well, I think Fluff, the Game and Image are all unbreakable linked and one of the reasons for the success of the Warhammer setting itself:

I know I wouldn't stay for only the rules; there are better out there with a variety of factions (GW even made them themselves). If I only wanted fluff there are other settings to read. The models are nice but if I was just into modelling there are plenty out there with more variety.

It's the combination of the lot which makes the Warhammer product compelling.

The main problem with the 3+ save is the armour system itself. The best thing for the game is the AP system to be consigned to history.

Another problem is that all the 3+ save armies are also mostly T4 and have a bolter or something very similar to one.

What Marines do is rip the variety out of the setting in all of rules, fluff and models: Marines more or less look the same, share too many rules and are just different spins on one archetype in fluff.

RiTides wrote:Johira, the thing is I don't think there was anything sinister involved in that. As far as I can tell, lots of people here were excited about beastmen... and they did get a lot of new plastic kits in their release! The models are great in my opinion. Minotaurs were let down by bad studio paint jobs, I even had that sigged for a while from Kirbinator "GW Minotaurs look great when not painted like ham" .

We'll have to agree to disagree (I think the minotaurs are terrible regardless of paint job, and I'm definitely not alone on that score). But my point was not that it was a sinister plot to screw over beastmen, only that in the WFB line there are certain armies less popular than others with the studio, and they get the minimum attention needed to have a "complete" release. That's way better than certain armies being neglected by the studio because some corporate bean-counter thinks they need to do a Space Marine army first. In fact, I'd almost prefer to have my army be neglected if the studio doesn't have any motivation to do anything exciting with it. Better to not get an update at all than to get an update that replaces good models with bad just to try and get me to buy new.

NAVARRO wrote:I would rather see a huge book with all marines and another with all chaos than this multiplication and fllooding of 40k with marines.

I would agree. A faction book should allow you to play any army of that faction. One SM book to play all the SM colours, a Choas book to allow you to play any CSM army/legion/warband +/- daemons +/- traitor IG. An Eldar book to allow you to play different craftworlds, an IG book to let you play any of the famous IG regiments/playstyles (although I think it is actually pretty good at doing this at the moment), etc...

Not that it will ever happen, but hey.

TTTTTTAAAAUUUUU RRRRAAAAAGGGGGEEEEE!!!!!

F#@K YOU GW!

YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!
I can do it as well, except this time I didn't ignore the FW Tau releases, and then make a massive point out of tau not having the bits that I ignored.



See?
It's not as bad as you thought, or made it out to be, because you counted each individual FW bit pack as a separate release, when they were actually part of a wave of releases for Badab.

If you do the same for all of the armies, rather than just for SM, it comes out much more balanced.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also CSM got the new daemon prince kit and daemon models.

Also Also, a large proportion of the SM models were bitz packs and conversion sets, such as the 3 sets of bolters.

Also Also, a large proportion of the SM models were bitz packs and conversion sets, such as the 3 sets of bolters.

Why do Space Marines need these?

38% is far too much for one army.

Daba wrote:Why do Space Marines need these?

Well, there are lots of different colours of marine

What came out for tau in 2010?

What were the 7 chaos releases for 2010? Are you counting Daemons and Chaos as a single faction? They aren't, any more then IG and SM are the same action.

When one SM weapons pack comes out in June, and another comes out in August, should those not be considered different releases?

And, the last question - when you have 12 factions, and 40% of new models go to a single one of them, is that percentage significantly less stupid?

SilverMK2 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I would rather see a huge book with all marines and another with all chaos than this multiplication and fllooding of 40k with marines.

I would agree. A faction book should allow you to play any army of that faction. One SM book to play all the SM colours, a Choas book to allow you to play any CSM army/legion/warband +/- daemons +/- traitor IG. An Eldar book to allow you to play different craftworlds, an IG book to let you play any of the famous IG regiments/playstyles (although I think it is actually pretty good at doing this at the moment), etc...

Not that it will ever happen, but hey.

As it is now, compressing all 8 million Space Marine codecies into one codex would be a little harsh.

I would rather suggest combining them into two codecies: One for codex chapters, and one for non-codex chapters. Both would give you options to customize your chapter, similar to a more refined version of the trait system from the 4th ed codex. The codex... codex would act similar to the 5th ed codex, with traits replacing chapter tactics instead of special rules, where as the non-codex... codex would have you picking traits that not only added new special rules, but also alter your selection of units, as well as their placement on the FoC.

Key issue is how many units in the codex currently have models available? Vanilla SM I think you can pretty much buy every unit and most of them in plastic. Maybe a few heroes/bikes, but essentially there. Only massive SM anomoly appears to be thunder wolves for SW as BA are also well supported, especially now stormraven and furioso dread now available.

My 2 armies? IG and Tyranids. IG - HS is a real pain with many variants in the FW only category - hydras, griffons, colossus etc. Tyranids? Well what a joke! Missing models, expensive single metal models (ie hive guard). Look at the one's you need to convert - swarmlord, prime, parasite, tervigon, ymgarl, doom, harpy, tyrannofex, mycetic spore, shrikes, sky slashers.

Using the Forge World releases as an indicator of too much attention being paid to Marines is pretty iffy. 2008 and 2009 both saw huge amounts of Ork stuff being released; the SM releases in 2010 were variations on a theme (marks of power armour, which have turned out to be very popular for a variety of reasons) and some retro bitz packs to go with them. The end of 2010 and the opening bits of 2011 have seen a bunch of Eldar releases in the lead up to IA11; the period from the release of the Hornet is roughly evenly split between Marines (with the Achilles, Tyberos and the FW Ironclad), Guard (Malcador, Cadian HE) and Eldar (Wasp, Hornet, Shadow Spectres). What FW releases is entirely dependent on what book they're putting out; it's been Guard vs. X for years, then Orks v. Marines, now Eldar vs. Guard/Marines with the focus seemingly on the Guard.

Corrode wrote:Using the Forge World releases as an indicator of too much attention being paid to Marines is pretty iffy. 2008 and 2009 both saw huge amounts of Ork stuff being released; the SM releases in 2010 were variations on a theme (marks of power armour, which have turned out to be very popular for a variety of reasons) and some retro bitz packs to go with them. The end of 2010 and the opening bits of 2011 have seen a bunch of Eldar releases in the lead up to IA11; the period from the release of the Hornet is roughly evenly split between Marines (with the Achilles, Tyberos and the FW Ironclad), Guard (Malcador, Cadian HE) and Eldar (Wasp, Hornet, Shadow Spectres). What FW releases is entirely dependent on what book they're putting out; it's been Guard vs. X for years, then Orks v. Marines, now Eldar vs. Guard/Marines with the focus seemingly on the Guard.

Perfectly understandable. I like it how they follow the fluff and try not to make it seem like the space Marines are the only ones fighting the important battles.

Goliath wrote:YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!

First off, way to assume bad faith.

I posted what my methodology was, so it's not like I played cute with the numbers to fit my predetermined hypothesis. I've started re-working my base data to be more precise, to specifically list every single kit (not release, kit) released for 40k in 2010. I didn't see any Tau releases in the newsletter, but in retrospect, I also didn't see the FW Ironclad or the Land Raider Achilles either: perhaps my email search is imperfect. Perhaps I was sloppy. I am, however, attempting to honestly build this to get a good idea. If you'd like to help me, here's my data list: The red line indicates the point where I got busy with work and had to stop. Everything above the line is fleshed out with the precise number of kits, everything below is just a single release. Then we can rebuild the chart and see utterly precisely the lay of the land. I'll edit this list if anyone else wants to work on it, and then we'll know every kit released for 40k in 2010 which incidentally is also sort of a nice list to have anyway.

Jan 2010 - Space Marines: Legion of the Damned wave (9 kits)
Jan 2010 - Tyranids - Ravener, Trygon, Gargoyle, Pyrovore, Venomthrope, Hive Guard(6 kits)
Jan 2010 - FW IG - Tauros Venator, Tauros, Valkryie Sky Talon (3 kits)
Feb 2010 - Space Marines: Venerable Dreadnought (1 kit)
Feb 2010 - Ork Killa Kans & Dreads (2 kits)
Mar 2010 - IG Chimaera, Basilisk(2 kits)
Apr 2010 - Space Marines: Blood Angels - sanguinary guard, death company, baal predator, sanguinor, lemartes (5 kits)
May 2010 - FW - Space Marines: Shadow Captain Korvydae, Raven Guard Upgrade (2 kits)
May 2010 - FW - Ork Warkopta (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - FW - Ork Grot Tanks (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - Eldar Fire Prism (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - IG Manticore\Deathstrike (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - Ork Mekka Dread (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - FW Space Marine: Special Weapons Pack (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marines - Raven Guard Transfers (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Ork Kommando Upgrades (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: Caestus Assault Ram (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: MK III Iron Armour Set (1 kit)

Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: Umbra Bolter pack , Special Weapons Pack 2 (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - Chaos Daemons - Daemon Prince, Pink Horrors, Seekers of Slaneesh, Changeling, Kairos Fateweaker, bloodcrushers (6 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space marine: Mk IV Maximus Armour Set, Umbra Ferrox Pattern Bolter Pack, Umbra Phobos Pattern Bolter Pack, Mk2 Crusade Armour Set, MkV Heresy Armour Set, MkIV Corvus Armour Set (6 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space Marine: Raven Guard brass etch, Flesh Tearers brass etch (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space Marine: Iron hands transfers, Imperial Fists transfers (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - Traitors of Chaos (re-release) (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Lugft Huron, Sevrin Loth (Raven Guard librarian) (2 kits)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Blood Ravens transfers, Crimson Fists transfers, Blood Angels transfers (3 kits)
Sep 2010 - FW IG Elysian Transfers (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Ork Etched Brass (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Space Marine Character Upgrade Pack (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Necron Tomb Stalker (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Ork Grot Mega Tank (1 kit)
Oct 2010 - Dark Eldar - Incubi, Archon, Lelith Hesperax, Kabalite Warriors, Raider, Reavers, Wyches (8 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Land Raider Achilles, FW Ironclad Dreadnought (2 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Eldar Hornet (1 kit)
Nov 2010 - Dark Eldar - Ravager, Hellions, Uriel Rakarth, Mandrakes (4 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Raptors transfers (1 kit)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Iron hands brass etch, Imperial & Crimson Fists Etched Brass (2 kits)
Dec 2010 - FW IG Malcador Infernus

all up to date 8:37am cst

You're missing some of the IA8 releases for guard, namely the Tauros Venator, Standard Tauros and Valkyrie Sky Talon. All released in Jan 2010.

Snarky wrote:You're missing some of the IA8 releases for guard, namely the Tauros Venator, Standard Tauros and Valkyrie Sky Talon. All released in Jan 2010.

Alright, I'm not sloppy: my search is not finding the newsletter releases for the Tauros or the FW Ironclad. Updating.

I appreciate Ouze's work on the graph. It is very informative, even if it is slightly inaccurate.

SM have been in every boxed set since 2nd edition. The current set comes with the same armies as the 2nd ed box. GW stores are full of SM, Blood Angles, Space Wolves, etc. Until recently, Dark Eldar were not even stocked in their stores. The only upside to the super abundace of SM is that I get to kill more of them.

I, like many other GW fans, would like to see more xenos stuff. If GW would adopt Privateer Press' release schedule then we would not only get new models for every army on a regular basis, but would also get loads of new rule books.

I think even SM players are tired of the SM releases. In the very least they could release something new. Rather than Grey Knights, they could make an Adeptus Mechanicus codex. That would sell really well.

A long time ago, I had two Eldar codices - Eldar, and Craftworld Eldar. The second one was a simple supplement to the first, detailing the fluff, listing the heroes, and including the new FoC.

As much as I like marines, I like simplicity more. I'd much rather see this arrangement (Codex Marines and one Variant Chapters book). They had a Chapter Traits table in one of the SM codex books - so it'd be a fairly straightforward task to list the changes to the FoC and the individual chapters' specific traits.

I'd love to see less of the "Big Four" (BA, SW, DA, Ultra) and see more of the White Scars, Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, and other builds. By putting them all on the same footing and seeing them all side by side, you might get a more balanced arrangement.

spaceelf wrote:I appreciate Ouze's work on the graph. It is very informative, even if it is slightly inaccurate.

I, like many other GW fans, would like to see more xenos stuff. If GW would adopt Privateer Press' release schedule then we would not only get new models for every army on a regular basis, but would also get loads of new rule books.

I think even SM players are tired of the SM releases.

Well Ouze's graph only missed the mark by a percentage but the main point is still very correct.

PP release shedule would mean after each new editions released they would make new revised books for each faction under a year

I hope SM players still love it because GW has been putting most of its eggs on one basket.

Hence a big part of the reason I lost interest in GW...and I like SMs.

Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

This was the first time they've done a full "Marine v. Marine" setup, two books even.
Most years if Forge World releases any Marine items, it's in the same numbers as the Tau/Ork stuff.

Well, to be fair, this is the natural culmination of a chain of events laid down way back in Rogue Trader. There, you had the "good guys" of the Imperium, and they only came in two flavors: Hammer and Anvil. You could play the shining white knights of the Marines or the scruffy underdogs of the IG. There was no middle ground - the Titan Legions, Imperial Navy, and air support didn't come into things until much, much later.

You see the same kind of dichotomy in fantasy gaming as well (not so much WHFB, but elsewhere) with humans being extremely popular, and human knights/paladins being overwhelmingly so. As cliche as it can be, there's something about the paragon of human badassery facing off against of see of gibbering evil that resonates with the average joe, and I think GW is knowingly tapping into that.

On the human side, you still have a pretty limited pallette, unfortunately. You still have the traditional Hammer and Anvil roles, but now you also have Marines Lite (SoB) and Magic Marines (GK). The Witchhunters codex ALMOST gave the Imperium a viable third flavor, but in the end most players - myself included - just looked at it as a book to build a Sisters army with the possible inclusion of an assassin.

I think what needs to happen is a differentiation of roles. What I like most about WHFB is that every army has a variety of different ways it can be built, because of vagaries in unit size and force composition. I think that it is much harder to min/max your average fantasy army than it is in 40K - there's just not enough variation from role to role to make a difference. And the marines, bless `em, are just the pinnacle of homogenization. They were set up as the standard by which all else in the 40K universe was measured since Day One, and they've remained that way.

When they first released Epic 40K, it was originally titled Space Marine. So it's not like the writing wasn't on the wall early on.

Kanluwen wrote:Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

Really? Using FW releases to also count as GWS releases wasn't so odd when players wondered about a plastic dread, and you pointed out that chaos players could save their pennies and get the FW one instead. Or did you mean using 2010? That was the last full year of releases. Should I cherry pick out some year that had less releases to better massage the data?

Strelka wrote:Well, to be fair, this is the natural culmination of a chain of events laid down way back in Rogue Trader. There, you had the "good guys" of the Imperium, and they only came in two flavors: Hammer and Anvil. You could play the shining white knights of the Marines or the scruffy underdogs of the IG. There was no middle ground - the Titan Legions, Imperial Navy, and air support didn't come into things until much, much later.

You see the same kind of dichotomy in fantasy gaming as well (not so much WHFB, but elsewhere) with humans being extremely popular, and human knights/paladins being overwhelmingly so. As cliche as it can be, there's something about the paragon of human badassery facing off against of see of gibbering evil that resonates with the average joe, and I think GW is knowingly tapping into that.

On the human side, you still have a pretty limited pallette, unfortunately. You still have the traditional Hammer and Anvil roles, but now you also have Marines Lite (SoB) and Magic Marines (GK). The Witchhunters codex ALMOST gave the Imperium a viable third flavor, but in the end most players - myself included - just looked at it as a book to build a Sisters army with the possible inclusion of an assassin.

I think what needs to happen is a differentiation of roles. What I like most about WHFB is that every army has a variety of different ways it can be built, because of vagaries in unit size and force composition. I think that it is much harder to min/max your average fantasy army than it is in 40K - there's just not enough variation from role to role to make a difference. And the marines, bless `em, are just the pinnacle of homogenization. They were set up as the standard by which all else in the 40K universe was measured since Day One, and they've remained that way.

When they first released Epic 40K, it was originally titled Space Marine. So it's not like the writing wasn't on the wall early on.

Space Marines were very different in Rogue Trader:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/348361.page


The things which I found heroic and compelling about them then seem to be gone now. They're presented as boring invincible heroes now more or less.

True. I'm not sure when they scrubbed the marines clean and rebranded them, but you're right about them not being paladins. But I think the point about them being the Hammer to the IG's anvil, and being positioned as THE elite and the primary crux of the human side of the game still stands.

EDIT: I should never miss the opportunity to bash this abomination... the Ultramarines movie pretty much proves that the Marines have jumped the shark. They're as lifeless and wooden in concept now as the Terrance Stamp's performance and the animation in the movie.

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

Really? Using FW releases to also count as GWS releases wasn't so odd when players wondered about a plastic dread, and you pointed out that chaos players could save their pennies and get the FW one instead. Or did you mean using 2010? That was the last full year of releases. Should I cherry pick out some year that had less releases to better massage the data?

If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

Kanluwen wrote:If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

I am. I've only been playing since the end of 2008, and didn't even know Forge World existed until mid-2009, so I only had complete newsletter data for 2010.

Kanluwen wrote:And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

I wasn't clear on what your point was. I thought your thrust was that I shouldn't be counting FW kits as being equivalent to GWS releases, and it seemed appropriate to mention you also did. It looks like what you meant was 2010 was statistically odd, though.

Ouze wrote:

Goliath wrote:YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!

First off, way to assume bad faith.

actually the reason I assumed bad faith was the title of the thread, and the fact that you were inconsistent with your data gathering which led to a result that seemed skewed in your favour.

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

I am. I've only been playing since the end of 2008, and didn't even know Forge World existed until mid-2009, so I only had complete newsletter data for 2010.

Kanluwen wrote:And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

I wasn't clear on what your point was. I thought your thrust was that I shouldn't be counting FW kits as being equivalent to GWS releases, and it seemed appropriate to mention you also did. It looks like what you meant was 2010 was statistically odd, though.

For Forge World?

It was statistically odd to have so many Marine releases from them.

I think he was pointing out that the more data you have, the more accurate it would be. For example, if you took the American viewing figures for TV on the day of the superbowl, you would discover there were a lot of people watching American "football".

However, if you took viewing figures for the rest of the week, or month, year, decade, etc, you would discover that what was a significant trend now becomes relatively insignificant.

It would be interesting to see GW/FW releases year on year, as well as an overview "total" tally to see if the proportions remain relatively stable overall.

Goliath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

Actually its one specific race and per say one army... even the models are the same.

No and yes... WFB warrior of chaos, daemons and beastmen have completely diferent models and yes I believe they all should be packed inside 1 nice fat book.

here is a second, more accurate chart which specifies what exactly was in each release. Unsuprisingly, the numbers are more or less the same.

You need to cut Daemon/Witchhunters out since they were(unsurprisingly) culled from the line-up years ago.

SilverMK2 wrote:I think he was pointing out that the more data you have, the more accurate it would be. For example, if you took the American viewing figures for TV on the day of the superbowl, you would discover there were a lot of people watching American "football".

However, if you took viewing figures for the rest of the week, or month, year, decade, etc, you would discover that what was a significant trend now becomes relatively insignificant.

True as the superbowl brings in alot of people who only watch the superbowl.

Goliath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

I know nothing about WFB so I'm going on a limb here, but Beastmen/Warriors/Demons of Chaos all have very different base units right? At least much more distinctive than "This is a Green Marine, he likes to write moody poetry and look for fallen. This is a Red Marine, he sometimes goes mad and paints his armor black. This is a Blue Marine, he's a smug git. This is a Grey Marine, he's a yiffer". It would be fine to combine them into a single faction-book, but to lump them as a single army when they are clearly different is disingenuous.

I think that statistical analysis is pretty pointless. That being said, the Marine armies (although customized) are fundamentally similar and GW focusing so much effort on churning out another minimally distinctive Marine Army (last month was the Blood Angels, before it was the Wolves, next is the Grey Knights) is unfortunate and does everyone who plays the game (Marine players included) a disservice.

The point of "Fantasy in Space" is that there are a lot of factions to play, if 40k is going to become an endless rehash of the Marine-on-Marine Badab war then who will want to play it (other than Marines, and even they'll get bored of it after a while)? 40k isn't an original universe, but it is distinctive in that there's so much going on. The xeno species should be able to have narrative arcs that don't involve the Imperium (or at least don't involve the Astares), otherwise xenos aren't participants in the 40k universe, they're just bit players from central casting brought on to be beaten by the Big Hero. Utterly without agency. That makes them no different from the Zerg, they aren't characters they're foils. Who wants to play that?

Here's the problem with this issue: it either assumes that consumers are absolute idiots, or that GW is completely stupid.

Most companies release products they think will sell. Given the amount of SM stuff I see on table tops, i think GW has a pretty good handle on demand for SM stuff.

You could argue that people buy what's promoted, but if that's true, than it doesn't matter much what GW makes.

That said, I don't think using FW releases is necessarily the best for gauging GW's level of commitment to SM. It's pretty well documented that FW produces a lot of things that seem neat, and they figure a market will follow. In addition, plenty of things are released by FW as a test balloon.

Hmmm... perhaps a FW/GW only pie is required as well as the combined pie

Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

I'm curious as to how much autonomy Forge World has. If they are able to make their own decisions as to what to sculpt and sell, it might not be fair to include the FW releases in with the GW stuff. On the other hand, if there's a direct relationship there* and GW dictates what gets made, then it should be considered as one sample pool.

*I say this because I have no idea what the official relationship is between FW and GW, apart from FW makes the big expensive ones and the demons with eyeball nipples.

Polonius wrote:That said, I don't think using FW releases is necessarily the best for gauging GW's level of commitment to SM. It's pretty well documented that FW produces a lot of things that seem neat, and they figure a market will follow. In addition, plenty of things are released by FW as a test balloon.

I'd agree with this. I'd be more interested in non-FW releases, as the 'true' 40k representation. FW simply isn't the mainstream hobby; I never see it at the store, never play against it in local tournaments, and wouldn't know half of the models' stats if they did show up.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

If other races are treated as 2nd class, less people are inclined to start them and more drop out. If they release proportional Marine releases due to this, they make a positive feedback loop of customers being put of other factions and losing more an more customers.

Also, as this has happened GW sales have not experience growth.

While Marine focus may not be the cause, it has not helped growth so at best this sort of focus has done nothing.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

Then why even bother? Just rename the game "Badab War" and be done with it.

Look at any other model range, there are a dozen "Guys with Big Guns in Power Armor" lines out there, what made 40k cool is that it *wasn't* just "Guys with Big Guns in Power Armor" beating on each-other (as it was in other games), they were beating on Elves/Orks/Demons, all of whom were playable factions with full depth of their own. Without the xenos 40k is literally every other SciFi wargame, just with a 40% price hike.

Such a cool universe, and they're throwing it away to be just like everyone else.

Goliath wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Goliath wrote:YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!

First off, way to assume bad faith.

actually the reason I assumed bad faith was the title of the thread, and the fact that you were inconsistent with your data gathering which led to a result that seemed skewed in your favour.

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

I haven't played WHFB since about since about 1983 so I don't know what those armies are like.

The various SM armies are much more similar to each other than they are different. If someone isn't very interested in Space Marines, I don't see why they would be interested in SW or DA or BT or whatever, or why they would welcome lots more books about "different" SM armies.

The IG codex allows players to make a variety of army styles; foot slogger, mechanised, siege artillery, armoured corps, air cavalry, elite commando, conscript rabble.

Should all of those be split into separate codexes because they are different armies that come under the banner term "Imperial Guard"?

Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I don't mind that so many SM codexes are released. What I care about is that too few non-SM codexes are released in the same time period.

For me, this is it. I'm a fan of Space Marines, I'd much rather they didn't appear to over-saturate the game as they do now, but they are an integral part to 40K and pretty much always have been. But then again, so are the various Xenos races.

I think this is an interesting thread but I'd much rather it didn't collapse into the mindless-marine-hating-drivel that I seem to see on the forum sometimes.

Like KK said, I don't mind Space Marines receiving so much support or being such an integral part of the game, however I would MUCH prefer it if it was equally balanced with what the alien races receive.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable the Games Workshop (a business) has a bias for Space Marines. I do think however that it shouldn't be quite so biased or blatant.

It's worth pointing out that the SM bias goes back further than most people seem to think. I have a heavy metal painting guide from early 2nd edition, and roughly half the book discusses space marines. To be fair, this at a time when the IG still used the RT era necromundan spider models, and a few other ranges were being quietly buried (squats) while othere were horribly underdeveloped (nids).

Still, the love for the Marines goes way, way back.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

I know nothing about WFB so I'm going on a limb here, but Beastmen/Warriors/Demons of Chaos all have very different base units right? At least much more distinctive than "This is a Green Marine, he likes to write moody poetry and look for fallen. This is a Red Marine, he sometimes goes mad and paints his armor black. This is a Blue Marine, he's a smug git. This is a Grey Marine, he's a yiffer". It would be fine to combine them into a single faction-book, but to lump them as a single army when they are clearly different is disingenuous.

?

Aye I agree with almsot everything but the final part.
I will try to explain really quickly and try not to enter offtopic.

Back in the day 1997 there was a army book called realm of chaos and there you could mix warbands of beastmen, mortals warriors and daemons, needless to say someone who got this book soon collected every warband and mixed them in cool combos... It was the one great chaos book for WFB with all chaos packed in one tome ( except the chaos dwarfs when they were still part of the WFB universe)... well time passed and GW started splitting the book in tree... yes the models are quite diferent and warbands feels have diferent styles of play but splitting them in time killed the momentum... now you have to wait for 3 diferent books ( and you know that GW takes years to release something) and the interested fadded away... no more interest in collecting separated chaos and eventually sold most of my chaos warbands.
Today you have very unchaotic books and all info dispersed... I rather wait for one big book than hunt for 3 and change everything each time a new book hits the shelves.
SO even if models are diferent they worked so well on that realm of chaos book.
With this said looking at SM reality its just silly so many books scattered for chapter y or X add to that the fact GW is very slow to release a book and you have a completly diferent xeno race competing with several very samey and boring SM books.

But again GW has the numbers and if theres people interested in chapter yellow kitty they will make a nice book for you.

I would just like to add:

The human element is also probably a big part of the appeal too though. They're humans, but they're superheroes. Like I said, GW are only responding to what people seem to want!

I don't get people who can't see past it. My favourites have always been Orcs/Orks of any description, but I still have a few Space Marine armies. I probably use them less than anything else, but they're just as fun as modelling projects as any other army (except orks ).

The Chaos armies in Fantasy are more different than similar.

IMO they're more different to each other than they are to many of the other races, with only the Daemon Prince and Giant shared (the latter of which is shared with the Orc and Ogre armies too)

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The human element is also probably a big part of the appeal too though.

See, I don't get that about the SM's. The IG are humans and have human interest. The SM have about as much personality as a brick and are just superhuman fanatics for the most part.

Sure, there are books and so on with more human SM, but generally they are a pretty boring and I have no interest in them beyond "they look pretty cool".

One of the reasons I play CSM rather than SM - I get to keep the rather cool looking marines, but mix it up with evil daemons, etc (or at least I could when I first started my CSM army) as well as give my marines some more personality than "I sit in my cell polishing my armour and praying all day".

I'll add something I usually add to these discussions: my view that for a far future space opera, space marines are basically the "basic troop."

IG represent goons, redshirts, something to be dealt with by the real heros and villians. Nearly every sci-fi (or even fantasy) story with mass combat elements has focused on the elite and the capable. Space marines reflect that, and their variations reflect that people want variety in the heros/villians that they don't care about in the supporting cast.

I haven't actually added it up, but I'd wager that if you added up all the dedicated kits for SM varients, you'd get roughly the same amount as something like Orks.

I mean, for plastic you have:
Wolf Packs
Wolf Terminators
Sanguinary Guard
Baal Predator
Stormraven (sort of?)
Death Company
DA upgrade
RW upgrade
BT upgrade

Compare to Orks:
Boys
Nobs
Trukk
Battle Wagon
Skorcha
Buggy
Bikes
Storm boys
Lootas
Grots

The point is, in terms of model support (by far the bulk of an armies development cost) all non-chaos MEQ variants roughly cost the same as a full new army.

You can argue if all SM variants are as varied as two full army books, but the cost/benefit ratio for MEQ books is stupidly high compared to other armies.
Or to Tau
Fire Warriors
Kroot
Battle Suits
Stealth Suits
Devil Fish
Sky Ray
Hammer head
Piranha

NAVARRO wrote:
Aye I agree with almsot everything but the final part.
I will try to explain really quickly and try not to enter offtopic.

Back in the day 1997 there was a army book called realm of chaos and there you could mix warbands of beastmen, mortals warriors and daemons, needless to say someone who got this book soon collected every warband and mixed them in cool combos... It was the one great chaos book for WFB with all chaos packed in one tome ( except the chaos dwarfs when they were still part of the WFB universe)... well time passed and GW started splitting the book in tree... yes the models are quite diferent and warbands feels have diferent styles of play but splitting them in time killed the momentum... now you have to wait for 3 diferent books ( and you know that GW takes years to release something) and the interested fadded away... no more interest in collecting separated chaos and eventually sold most of my chaos warbands.
Today you have very unchaotic books and all info dispersed... I rather wait for one big book than hunt for 3 and change everything each time a new book hits the shelves.
SO even if models are diferent they worked so well on that realm of chaos book.
With this said looking at SM reality its just silly so many books scattered for chapter y or X add to that the fact GW is very slow to release a book and you have a completly diferent xeno race competing with several very samey and boring SM books.

But again GW has the numbers and if theres people interested in chapter yellow kitty they will make a nice book for you.

I think we're basically in agreement. My choice of words was poor. I meant "counting them as one army" in the context of the pie charts. It would be more correct to combine and count the Marines as one army/faction/species than it would be to combine and count Warriors/Demons/Beastmen.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The human element is also probably a big part of the appeal too though.

See, I don't get that about the SM's. The IG are humans and have human interest. The SM have about as much personality as a brick and are just superhuman fanatics for the most part.

Sure, there are books and so on with more human SM, but generally they are a pretty boring and I have no interest in them beyond "they look pretty cool".

One of the reasons I play CSM rather than SM - I get to keep the rather cool looking marines, but mix it up with evil daemons, etc (or at least I could when I first started my CSM army) as well as give my marines some more personality than "I sit in my cell polishing my armour and praying all day".

You can't just deny that SM have human appeal. Most people who pick up the game or just do it as a hobby/painting thing don't get so far into the background as some of us, and just see them as humans. They make up more of GW's customers than the 'gaming community', and hence probably have more influence. Pretty much all of the armies are a blank canvas and you can do whatever you want with them. I think that CSM possibly have even more 'human appeal' than regular Astartes simply because they allow their ambition to replace their sense of duty, whilst still kicking equal amounts of arse.

The book 'Soul Hunter' changed the way I look at Marine armies in general, actually.

For popularity of alien races, we can look at another IP:

Starcraft, the races aren't really pushed to the forefront like Marines (though in 2 you can only play the human campaign.

What is the usage statistics for the 3 races? do Terran reign due to the 'human' factor?

Space Marines are easily more forgiving, adaptable, and appealing than any other army in 40k, which is not thesame as in fantasy (true there are some wide variations, but all of the armies are generally equally forgiving). There's not that much of a learning curve starting with Dwarves or High Elves, but god help you trying to keep a newbie interested with Eldar, especially if his rolls are bad and he consistently makes horrible tactical decisions.

In addition, the starter set basically gives you three of the most essential units for any SM army (as well as at a REALLY good value), while the ork one gives you about two (The Nobz lack power klaws and bikes. While Deffcoptas are much better fodder for Warbike conversions). In addition, having a single SM army, you just need the book for the other ones to start playing them. If you go from Orks to Nids, you need to shell out cash for a whole new set of models.

JOHIRA wrote:But my point was not that it was a sinister plot to screw over beastmen, only that in the WFB line there are certain armies less popular than others with the studio, and they get the minimum attention needed to have a "complete" release. That's way better than certain armies being neglected by the studio because some corporate bean-counter thinks they need to do a Space Marine army first. In fact, I'd almost prefer to have my army be neglected if the studio doesn't have any motivation to do anything exciting with it. Better to not get an update at all than to get an update that replaces good models with bad just to try and get me to buy new.

I can't tell lif you're being sarcastic in the line about it being "way better". I do think it's much, much better to get a release of some kind, and imho beastmen were really exciting. They unfortunately got undercut by lackluster rules and points costs that are actually appropriate for their monsters... whereas every other army seems to have undercosted ones. That, and the points of their units/blocks doesn't make them all that viable, either.

So yes, agree to disagree... I don't know what armies you think GW is somehow biased towards for fantasy (other than obvious things like pushing the starter set armies) in my opinion beastmen got more than O&G are getting in this release, unless you're really set on starting a savage orc army, there's not much new there for you other than the giant spider with regards to models (or at least units). And there's no denying that's a popular army all around, with people and the studio.

Now that's not to say I don't agree with what's mentioned several times above about it being nice if all the forces of chaos were in one book for fantasy. That's why it's the closest analogy to SM for 40k... but it's still not close, since despite it being frustrated that they're split, they are all extremely different flavors with completely different units / unit types. So fantasy definitely isn't suffering from the same SM syndrome. If you were being sarcastic in the above comment (which seems to match the last line of "better not to get an update at all) then I guess you are more satisfied with 40k's MO in this regard...

Daba wrote:For popularity of alien races, we can look at another IP:

Starcraft, the races aren't really pushed to the forefront like Marines (though in 2 you can only play the human campaign.

What is the usage statistics for the 3 races? do Terran reign due to the 'human' factor?

I know that when Supreme Commander was released the 'United Earth Federation' faction was by far the most popular. As people began to explore the game mechanics many went on to specialise in the others but the majority always played UEF. They were the most 'human' (all the factions essentially were) in that they weren't religious freaks or cyborgs.

Daba wrote:For popularity of alien races, we can look at another IP:

Starcraft, the races aren't really pushed to the forefront like Marines (though in 2 you can only play the human campaign.

What is the usage statistics for the 3 races? do Terran reign due to the 'human' factor?

In 2, the "Wings of Liberty" was the first of 3 campaigns.

Basically: Blizzard is making you buy each individual campaign.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
I know that when Supreme Commander was released the 'United Earth Federation' faction was by far the most popular. As people began to explore the game mechanics many went on to specialise in the others but the majority always played UEF. They were the most 'human' (all the factions essentially were) in that they weren't religious freaks or cyborgs.

Supreme Commander has much smaller numbers than Starcraft. Another interesting thing about SC is Blizzard makes balance updates very often compared with most, so there's less leaning on overpowered 'rules' or mechanics for one faction for a significant amount of time because the pendulum will swing (and it's quite balanced in the first place).

As far as I can tell (just looking around on statistics from gaming sites), it goes Protoss > Terran > Zerg in terms of popularity of factions played, but they are all very close to each other. I would like something more official though.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:You can't just deny that SM have human appeal.

I think you will find that I didn't. They just (to me at least) don't have as much human appeal as many other factions (most notably the IG).

IG has human appeal. To me, rooting for Space Marines is like rooting for Superman: "Way to vanquish that gun-wielding villain, man-who-is-immune-to-bullets! You sure are brave!" leaves me sort of cold, you know?

Which is where, I think, the variant chapters come in. The variants are all flawed in some way which makes them more interesting (just as all the interesting superheros are flawed)

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Daba wrote:For popularity of alien races, we can look at another IP:

Starcraft, the races aren't really pushed to the forefront like Marines (though in 2 you can only play the human campaign.

What is the usage statistics for the 3 races? do Terran reign due to the 'human' factor?

I know that when Supreme Commander was released the 'United Earth Federation' faction was by far the most popular. As people began to explore the game mechanics many went on to specialise in the others but the majority always played UEF. They were the most 'human' (all the factions essentially were) in that they weren't religious freaks or cyborgs.

It is strange that 40K Space Marines are religious fanatics and cyborgs/mutants.

Scott-S6 wrote:Which is where, I think, the variant chapters come in. The variants are all flawed in some way which makes them more interesting (just as all the interesting superheros are flawed)

Except that fluff flaws are converted to crunch advantage (Black Rage springs to mind).

I realize why it's done (if they were difficult to play, fewer people would), but it's unfortunate that it can't be handled better is all.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Which is where, I think, the variant chapters come in. The variants are all flawed in some way which makes them more interesting (just as all the interesting superheros are flawed)

Except that fluff flaws are converted to crunch advantage (Black Rage springs to mind).
I realize why it's done (if they were difficult to play, fewer people would), but it's unfortunate that it can't be handled better is all.

This is true. It is a bit mary-sue-ish.

3rd edition made the black rage a genuine disadvantage (dev squads and vindicators became utterly unreliable, for example) but the other special rules more than made up for it. At least they were in some way disadvantaged though.

As for marines, I totally agree with the Superman analogy. That's one title I could never really get into (minus the superb restarts and one-offs that focus more on the "what ifs" and human elements, like Red Son) just because there's no drama. And with marines, I feel the same way unless it's played in a way that creates it.

I have a marine force, in full disclosure. But I play the whole unit as deep strikers and drop pods, with no tank support. I lose... a lot. But playing the Warrhino LandraiderK just got old after a while, and I didn't have the painting chops to pull off a White Scars force

I think the previous edition codex (I get the covers mixed up. I think it was the one with the ridiculously oversized space marine armor shooting the alien on it) had the matrix where you could take advantages and disadvantages for your non-codex chapter. While that is prone to all sorts of min-maxing, I still find it better than the current trend of codex spam. Just put out the "ultramarines" codex with the trait matrix, and in the appendix show the FoC and traits for the famous chapters.

If you need additional space for more info, go ahead and print a small folio codex with chapter specific information. But when I see a website or WD with "NEW SPACE WOLVES RELEASE!" one month or "BLOOD ANGELS ON THE HORIZON" I just read: "more space marines."

But let's face it, they ARE the New York Yankees of the game. Where they've really failed is in making the rest of the Imperium nearly as playable. From my own experience, IG were pretty much a laughing stock until Steel Legion rolled around and you started seeing very heavy tank builds - hillbillies with flashlights was the saying until they toughened up.

I'd love to see five or six plastic squad boxes for IG flavor and FoCs / rules to support them within the basic codex: Steel Legion is sorely missed (GREAT look to those minis), Tallaran, Praetorians, and so on. But they need to be available for long periods, and not on this "on-again, off-again" schedule that (in my mind) kills the likelihood of more players building large IG armies.

The Inquisition needs to be sorted out. SoB is a great looking army with all sorts of awesome fluff. But it is a jumbled mess right now. It needs to be somehow forged into something that is neither SM lite or IG with power armor, and I have NO clue how to do that.

Grey Knights and Daemonhunters... why? If I saw demons and psionics play half as big a role in 40K as "more artillery and bigger guns," I'd have no issue with it. But from what I see played most often, it'd be like having a WHFB army based solely on the premise of blowing up bolt throwers and spiking mortars.

Thinking back to RT, I remember they talked about the threats facing the Imperium: the Xenos, the Demons of the Warp, and the threats from within: mutants and heretics. I would LOVE to see more attention to this - and the most obvious place to start? Genestealer cults. For crying out loud, they were the most sinister thing going in 40K for a while, but the `nid fluff got changed. But I seem to recall a dark and embarrassing time when orks were mushrooms, so I don't think it's too much to ask for the writers to go back and see if they can't shoehorn the cultists back in.

Polonius wrote:
I haven't actually added it up, but I'd wager that if you added up all the dedicated kits for SM varients, you'd get roughly the same amount as something like Orks.

I mean, for plastic you have:
Wolf Packs
Wolf Terminators
Sanguinary Guard
Baal Predator
Stormraven (sort of?)
Death Company
DA upgrade
RW upgrade
BT upgrade

Compare to Orks:
Boys
Nobs
Trukk
Battle Wagon
Skorcha
Buggy
Bikes
Storm boys
Lootas
Grots

The point is, in terms of model support (by far the bulk of an armies development cost) all non-chaos MEQ variants roughly cost the same as a full new army.

The non chaos MEQs taken as a whole are larger than another army. (Dont forget things like the dark angels bikes, and the abundance of metal figures that exist for non generic MEQs.) The MEQs also have a superabundance of battalions and other deals like the black reach set. I think that if the xenos armies needed as few models as MEQs and had the variety of bundles that MEQs have then you would see a lot more xenos players.

I never found Space Marines to be particularly human. Almost all of them wear helmets, and thus don't look human. Their fluff makes them sound rather inhuman.

Strelka wrote:
I think the previous edition codex (I get the covers mixed up. I think it was the one with the ridiculously oversized space marine armor shooting the alien on it)

Oh yeah, that's *REAL* helpful!

Kilkrazy wrote:Now you can see why I suggested that the putative 6th edition starter set should contain Space Marines and Space Marines as the two armies.

Oh please can we call the box set Red vs. Blue?

spaceelf wrote:I never found Space Marines to be particularly human. Almost all of them wear helmets, and thus don't look human.

My girlfriend calls them my "little orange robot dudes." The Tyrannids are usually referred to by sound effects ("I found the little blargha blargh blah! guy that bounced behind the couch."), so it's a step up.

Personally I like marines and enjoy all the releases that they recieve (apart from smelly, hairy space wolves ). However, I have often wanted to collect a different xenos army but am dettered by the way that they never get any new stuff for years on end. I thing GW has fooled themselves into releasing a 50/50 mix of Imperium and every other army out there which is of course very unfair to a large population of the gaming community.

I could have sworn that FW released some tau suits last year.

Polonius wrote:...

I haven't actually added it up, but I'd wager that if you added up all the dedicated kits for SM varients, you'd get roughly the same amount as something like Orks.

I mean, for plastic you have:
Wolf Packs
Wolf Terminators
Sanguinary Guard
Baal Predator
Stormraven (sort of?)
Death Company
DA upgrade
RW upgrade
BT upgrade

Compare to Orks:
Boys
Nobs
Trukk
Battle Wagon
Skorcha
Buggy
Bikes
Storm boys
Lootas
Grots

The point is, in terms of model support (by far the bulk of an armies development cost) all non-chaos MEQ variants roughly cost the same as a full new army.

You can argue if all SM variants are as varied as two full army books, but the cost/benefit ratio for MEQ books is stupidly high compared to other armies.
Or to Tau
Fire Warriors
Kroot
Battle Suits
Stealth Suits
Devil Fish
Sky Ray
Hammer head
Piranha

This serves to point out something that I'm not sure is really been touched on: the inherent savings in SM kits. That is; if you make a new plastic kit for Orks, or DE, or Tau, you have a kit that can only be used with that one army list. While you might, perhaps, be able to multi-purpose some Eldar models as DE, or IG as Tau irregulars, for the most part, every kit made for a non-marine army has a much smaller possible sale pool then a comparable SM release.

Just think about it in terms of the new Chibihawk kit: by allowing multiple armies to use the model, you increase the pool of people willing to buy it, decreasing the risk in making it. Same goes for things like generic SM terminators or tac squads, or assault marines, all of which can easily be used for loyalist marines (and with a little effort, chaos too).

By comparison, no matter how excellent and superior things like the new DE plastics are, they are only useful for DE players.

I'm not saying I agree with GW's release schedule, but it is important to bear in mind when terms such as "xenos" as thrown around. Just as it makes sense to lump toghether all releases for the various Marine chapters as "Marines", so we also have to recognize the limitations of non-SM releases: there is no "xeno" counterpart to the tac squad, or the terminator box, or a landraider or landspeeder, so on and so forth.

Given GW's limited resources, this is only to be expected.

It's a vicious cycle. GW produces SM variants because they have so much groundwork on it already, and it's popular. On the other hand, this popularity and variety of kits was because they produced so many variants. And it's never going to change, because none of the other races will ever be as profitable as the SMs.

However, we might see a slight increase in Eldar Kits. DEs were specifically made to be cross-compatable with other DE kits as well as craftworld kits, much like SMs. While still nowhere near the heights SMs have gotten, it is a small step in the right direction.

I think it is interesting to look at the numbers presented by Ouze, combine them with the fact that more and more people seem to be making a "generic" chapter to represent them all, and then ask one self; "Is GW actually increasing its sales in the long run with this continued favouritism?"

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:It's a vicious cycle. GW produces SM variants because they have so much groundwork on it already, and it's popular. On the other hand, this popularity and variety of kits was because they produced so many variants. And it's never going to change, because none of the other races will ever be as profitable as the SMs.

...

The counter arguments to that are:

1. GW is only barely profitable, thanks largely to international currency exchange changes (a weak £).
2. Sales have been dropping for several years.
3. If you stripped out the Xeno player contribution, they would be making a loss.
4. Suppose a lot of Xeno players dropped the game because it got too boring. Would SM vs SM vs CSM vs IG be sufficiently interesting to keep the game going?

Steelmage99 wrote:I think it is interesting to look at the numbers presented by Ouze, combine them with the fact that more and more people seem to be making a "generic" chapter to represent them all, and then ask one self; "Is GW actually increasing its sales in the long run with this continued favouritism?"

Probably, actually.

If I build a stock ultramarines army, and build it to a decent size (say 3000 points), I eventually realize that I can play that army in a pretty distinct way by buying and adding maybe 500-1000 more points.

By encouraging DIY, a "complete" space marine army now includes plenty of stuff to play wolves, BA, etc. My marines are DIY, and admittedly built out of old used stuff, but I'm building baal predators, extra apothocaries, and CCW/BP marines to run BA. I'm also buying librarians, missile launchers, and razorbacks to play wolves.

A smart marine player can get tremendous play value out of a solid core of tactical marines, landspeeders, drop pods, predators, and landraiders.

Surtur wrote:I could have sworn that FW released some tau suits last year.

Depends on how strict you want to be. I originally saw them for sale in September 2009 and eliminated them, but after some digging looks like that was a limited release (Games Day and some other things) and the general release was pushed all the way back to April 2010. I'm done editing that stupid sheet but if I did it over again I would/should have included it. I also made a similar mistake (but in the other direction) with the IG Malacador Infernus, which wasn't fully available until 2011 and should not have been included, but was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:You could argue that people buy what's promoted, but if that's true, than it doesn't matter much what GW makes.

Well, the other element to it is the viral one. Lets say you have a friend who plays, and who shows it to you in the shop. You look at a few shelves. Most of the stuff is halo looking space marines, but there are some silver terminator looking robots that also seem cool. You ask your friend about the skull robots. "Necrons"?" he scoffs. "They're ok, but they haven't had any cool stuff released in about a decade." Well, these double barrelled shotgun skeleton guys are neat! "Immortals? Well, they're not bad, but they're $14 apiece, and you need at least 5. They go up to 10. Do you have $70 to buy these 5 guys, or would you rather spend $15 more and get a whole battleforce?"

Granted, Necrons in general and Immortals in specific are maybe the most extreme example of this I can pick next to Sister of Battle, but as a Necron player they leap to mind as a good example of how a poorly developed faction becomes self-perpetuating: players in the know will not wish to invest startup capital into something that historically has seen halfass support.

Y'know, I can't think of any Space Marines that actually look 'Halo-y'.

That depends on how au fait you are with Halo and 40K.

The average man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably just wonder why the little robot dudes are waving swords and hammers when it is a science fiction game.

Unfortunately all these SM releases distract me from building a xeno army, because I get the "ooooh... look shiny" thing problem and then forget about my half painted skaven, or my just barely primed DE....

Kilkrazy wrote:That depends on how au fait you are with Halo and 40K.

Indeed. I was in Hobby Town yesterday when a kid walked up to the Battletech area: "Hey cool! Little Transformers!" Followed by the Reaper models: "These look like Bioshock guys!"

I'm going to have to sit with the DIY chapter theory. My smurfs may be absurdly expensive, but once I'm done them (my target right now is 1000 points, but I figure they'll be completely done at 1500), I won't be buying any more space marine kits... damn near ever (Grey Knights not included, but that depends on just how bad the codex ends up being).

Where as there's a wealth of xenos that could be interesting, but never gets touched. Half the stuff doesn't even have a model, and the release schedule is so slow that there's no motivation to even pick up a xenos army.

I was about to say the same thing. If xenos got more attention then they would be more interesting to play, paint, model, ect. Since that doesn't happen they have the same boring codex and models for years (or very long time), before GW even thinks about touching them.

The initial analysis didn't fully capture the realities of 2010. I would certainly agree that 5th has been pretty Marine heavy, but it's hardly the pie chart presented. Not all releases are equal.

The 3 bolter releases by FW??? What work into those? Someone asked why they needed 3 releases? How much work did FW do? What resources did they commit? Each release involved a single sculpt, copied 5 times, and sold to bolster the company bottom line while they grind out a Phantom Titan. I could say the same for the Armor Mks. One set of arms, one set of heads, one set of chests, one set of backpacks, and two kinds of legs. Those releases pay huge dividends for FW. Minimal outlay, maximum return. That is how you balance large kits that only sell, at most, several dozen to a low hundred kits.

As for GW proper, it is all about the plastic kits. Space Marines got the BA releases...Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, and the Baal predator, which was an add-sprue to an existing kit. That is 3.

I'm not trying to pretend that SMs don't get an inordinate amount of love. They do. But keep that in perspective. They don't make kits to piss you off. And they don't make kits based on some random idea of what army/fan base is worthy. They make kits based on a profit ratio. The SMs do well because require less effort up front. This is a business, gents.

As for GW barely being profitable...barely is a damn sight better than most mini/gaming companies, especially in this economy. SMs will get releases every year. Sorry. If you don't like that, pick another game.

Until that company inevitably goes under.

What was the 1% Necron release!? Tomb Stalker doesn't count as that's FW.

Kurgash wrote:What was the 1% Necron release!? Tomb Stalker doesn't count as that's FW.

Then they got nothing. The graph was counting FW releases as well.

Kilkrazy wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:It's a vicious cycle. GW produces SM variants because they have so much groundwork on it already, and it's popular. On the other hand, this popularity and variety of kits was because they produced so many variants. And it's never going to change, because none of the other races will ever be as profitable as the SMs.

...

The counter arguments to that are:

1. GW is only barely profitable, thanks largely to international currency exchange changes (a weak £).
2. Sales have been dropping for several years.
3. If you stripped out the Xeno player contribution, they would be making a loss.
4. Suppose a lot of Xeno players dropped the game because it got too boring. Would SM vs SM vs CSM vs IG be sufficiently interesting to keep the game going?

1.) I'm not good with financial matters so I wont argue this one. However I do know that buying GW locally here tends to have a considerable markup compared to that of the UK's price (calculating with exchange rates, Maelstrom, which claims to offer a 10% discount, is actually 30% cheaper than the GW retail price here on average).

2.) Same as above. Although I would imagine their sales improving if they had lowered the price to around that of normal toy hobbies rather than as a sort of luxury item. Certainly I've seen a ton of people pass up the hobby solely due to the price (the few that I know who indulges regularly borrows my stuff, which is partly why I own so many armies).

3+4.) Up until the update of the Ork Codex, I rarely, if ever, saw any xeno players. Most of the demographic over at fairview mall played either one of the imperial armies or Chaos, with maybe one or two for each of the xeno races (some, like the Dark Eldar and necrons, were never even brought up in a conversation, let alone had any players). Right now Orks saw a resurgence, but otherwise the other xeno races remain few and far between. In addition, every player I know owns at least one SM army and regularly updates it, so even if all the xeno races get cut, GW might suffer a drop in sales, but it will recover as people accept that SMs are all that's left. The local FLG has two whole racks dedicated to Marine stuff, with another half-rack dedicated to CSM and Imp Guard stuff, while all of the xeno races share the last rack.

Basically they could possibly quell all of the complaints by focusing more on Xeno races, and compensate the loss in space marine revenue by making the game overall more accessable monetary wise. However such is a dangerous venture, since if there isnt enough purchases to fill the gap made by those two decisions, it may put GW in the red, or worse.

dienekes96 wrote:The initial analysis didn't fully capture the realities of 2010. I would certainly agree that 5th has been pretty Marine heavy, but it's hardly the pie chart presented. Not all releases are equal.

The 3 bolter releases by FW??? What work into those? Someone asked why they needed 3 releases? How much work did FW do? What resources did they commit? Each release involved a single sculpt, copied 5 times, and sold to bolster the company bottom line while they grind out a Phantom Titan. I could say the same for the Armor Mks. One set of arms, one set of heads, one set of chests, one set of backpacks, and two kinds of legs. Those releases pay huge dividends for FW. Minimal outlay, maximum return. That is how you balance large kits that only sell, at most, several dozen to a low hundred kits.

As for GW proper, it is all about the plastic kits. Space Marines got the BA releases...Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, and the Baal predator, which was an add-sprue to an existing kit. That is 3.

I'm not trying to pretend that SMs don't get an inordinate amount of love. They do. But keep that in perspective. They don't make kits to piss you off. And they don't make kits based on some random idea of what army/fan base is worthy. They make kits based on a profit ratio. The SMs do well because require less effort up front. This is a business, gents.

As for GW barely being profitable...barely is a damn sight better than most mini/gaming companies, especially in this economy. SMs will get releases every year. Sorry. If you don't like that, pick another game.

Until that company inevitably goes under.

On the one hand GW are marketing geniuses, because they know what sells.

On the other hand, GW's sales dropped 4% in the last half of 2010, compared to the same period in 2009.

On the third hand, GW themselves say their poor sales performance is not due to the bad economy.

No-one is saying SMs shouldn't get releases. They are saying that non-SMs should get releases as well.

dienekes96 wrote: Not all releases are equal

This is absolutely true. Of course the guys who got nothing, or next to nothing, might have been happy with even some just brass etch or transfers. The "it doesn't take much effort to release just a few bolters" argument cuts both ways: if they have time to do a minor release, why not do one for the guys who haven't gotten stuff in years? But, of course, I also agree with your statement that GWS doesn't do anything to piss people off (that's just a byproduct of making a game people are passionate about). Obviously, their market research indicates people want MOAR MAHRINES, and that's what they are doing. Is it working for them? Hard to say. They've been bleeding money, but as others have said, in this industry, in this economy, making any money requires superhuman efforts. They presumably know the market better then I do.

I posted this chart to rebut the people who say GWS is too Space Marine-oriented are just whiners, or incorrect, or it's just perception. It's not, at least in 2010: If something got released, half the time it was for Space Marines. I didn't question the wisdom of this choice, see the previous paragraph.

Perhaps a better methodology would be to weight each release with a score, with a low score for say a transfer sheet, a medium score for a single kit, and a higher score for each kit that's part of a large wave release (or for a model that was in the codex but previously unreleased, like the Valkyrie or Stormraven). Separating FW from GWS also would be interesting.

Ouze wrote:I posted this chart to rebut the people who say GWS is too Space Marine-oriented are just whiners, or incorrect, or it's just perception. It's not, at least in 2010: If something got released, half the time it was for Space Marines. I didn't question the wisdom of this choice, see the previous paragraph.

Since my quoted statement kind of inspired this thread and your chart, I feel the need to clarify that it wasn't my intention to imply that anyone was a whiner or that they were unjustified in bemoaning the brevy of space marine releases compared to other armies, just that certain jokes have been worn out (imo).

I'm all for non space marine releases (and fresh comedic material).

NELS1031 wrote:

Ouze wrote:I posted this chart to rebut the people who say GWS is too Space Marine-oriented are just whiners, or incorrect, or it's just perception. It's not, at least in 2010: If something got released, half the time it was for Space Marines. I didn't question the wisdom of this choice, see the previous paragraph.

Since my quoted statement kind of inspired this thread and your chart, I feel the need to clarify that it wasn't my intention to imply that anyone was a whiner or that they were unjustified in bemoaning the brevy of space marine releases compared to other armies, just that certain jokes have been worn out (imo).

I'm all for non space marine releases (and fresh comedic material).

No, no - maybe I should have stripped your name from that. It's a very common sentiment and yours just happened to be the most recent. I hope I didn't give the impression that's how it was presented, as it's certainly not how I took it.

This thread has somehow managed to make me both glad and ashamed of being a Marine player, so good work .

While I'm glad for the constant updates and new stuff, I will admit that the balance of releases, at least related in this thread does rather appall me, especially as I know there are lists like the Necrons who could really use some new stuff (And the Dark Eldar before them) and haven't really seen much in a while.

'Tis almost enough to convert me to the side of the Xenos ......that and getting bored of the Marine vs Marine games that seem to be all I play when I play outside of my circle of friends (Lucky to have only one other power-armor player in my 6man group).

Whilst the point that Space Marine releases can be used for a large number of armies, making them sound releases in terms of product demand, I'd like to point out that as an Ork player - ANYTHING CAN BE LOOTED!

Orks don't need more Ork releases, they need more tank releases! I bought a Storm Raven today - it's going to be at least a Fighta-Bomma when I'm done with it.

I used to play in a kind of local 40K league back in 3rd edition. Things were so heavily imbalanced toward Space Marines even back then that the other members of the league thought it my duty as a rare non-MEQ player to only play against SM armies. When I wanted to play against another xenos army, I got the distinct impression people thought I was actually being selfish. Because that meant two non-MEQ armies were pulled out of the rotation and that meant there weren't enough xenos to go around and some SM player would have to play a SM player. And that's boring, so I was bad for making that happen.

Even worse, since I could basically guarantee who my opponent would be every week, taking an anti-MEQ list became a no-brainer. So I had to listen to complaints about how cheesy my army was. "Oh, of course you took Howling Banshees in a Wave Serpent. You couldn't just once take Striking Scorpions, could you?"

That's part of the reason my interest in 40K has trailed off, and why I eventually stopped buying and playing all together. So while I may not be a statistically significant sample, yes, GW's promoting of SMs did make them lose some sales.

Odd thing is that GW had added two non-MEQ armies since then (Tau, Chaos Daemons. Three if Witch Hunters counts) and yet the Marine-heavy environment seems to have actually gotten worse.

I wonder, now that it's been a few months: Are the WHFB players seeing a noticable uptick in the amount of High Elf\Skaven players? I wonder how linked the demographics are to simply what's in the starter box.

From what I can see there are a lot of High Elf players coming out of retirement, so to speak, and a healthy number of fresh Skaven players in my local circles.

Buzzsaw wrote:

Polonius wrote:...

I haven't actually added it up, but I'd wager that if you added up all the dedicated kits for SM varients, you'd get roughly the same amount as something like Orks.

I mean, for plastic you have:
Wolf Packs
Wolf Terminators
Sanguinary Guard
Baal Predator
Stormraven (sort of?)
Death Company
DA upgrade
RW upgrade
BT upgrade

Compare to Orks:
Boys
Nobs
Trukk
Battle Wagon
Skorcha
Buggy
Bikes
Storm boys
Lootas
Grots

The point is, in terms of model support (by far the bulk of an armies development cost) all non-chaos MEQ variants roughly cost the same as a full new army.

You can argue if all SM variants are as varied as two full army books, but the cost/benefit ratio for MEQ books is stupidly high compared to other armies.
Or to Tau
Fire Warriors
Kroot
Battle Suits
Stealth Suits
Devil Fish
Sky Ray
Hammer head
Piranha

This serves to point out something that I'm not sure is really been touched on: the inherent savings in SM kits. That is; if you make a new plastic kit for Orks, or DE, or Tau, you have a kit that can only be used with that one army list. While you might, perhaps, be able to multi-purpose some Eldar models as DE, or IG as Tau irregulars, for the most part, every kit made for a non-marine army has a much smaller possible sale pool then a comparable SM release.

Just think about it in terms of the new Chibihawk kit: by allowing multiple armies to use the model, you increase the pool of people willing to buy it, decreasing the risk in making it. Same goes for things like generic SM terminators or tac squads, or assault marines, all of which can easily be used for loyalist marines (and with a little effort, chaos too).

By comparison, no matter how excellent and superior things like the new DE plastics are, they are only useful for DE players.

I'm not saying I agree with GW's release schedule, but it is important to bear in mind when terms such as "xenos" as thrown around. Just as it makes sense to lump toghether all releases for the various Marine chapters as "Marines", so we also have to recognize the limitations of non-SM releases: there is no "xeno" counterpart to the tac squad, or the terminator box, or a landraider or landspeeder, so on and so forth.

Given GW's limited resources, this is only to be expected.

Of course, there are two other issues here. One is that GW aren't forced to re-do all their minis for a new army. When we hear about the next army to get a release, most discussions here are about rules. GW could resurrect sales of flagging armies by simply releasing a new, up to date codex and drip-feeding minis. They seem to be focussed on hitting us with everything new at once, so that we all rush out and buy a new book and lots of new models. It seems a fairly short-term strategy. (In addition, I don't think any 40K armies have any truly terrible minis that are essential to the game. I can't think of a 40K equivalent of Nagash, or dragon ogres. There is nothing crying out to be updated from a mini point of view - though I await correction).

The second is that they could release upgrade kits for armies, allowing players to field specific themed armies within that race. They obviously do this with space marines - SWs only have two dedicated SW boxes IIRC. So, for the orks, there could be a sprue including speed freek parts, goff parts, and blood axe parts, with sanctioned rules for them each (armies entirely in vehicles, armies even harder in CC and armies with access to imperial vehicles, each with a respective weakness). The same could be done for eldar craftworlds, tyranid bio-fleets etc.

dienekes96 wrote: They don't make kits to piss you off. And they don't make kits based on some random idea of what army/fan base is worthy. They make kits based on a profit ratio. The SMs do well because require less effort up front. This is a business, gents.

As for GW barely being profitable...barely is a damn sight better than most mini/gaming companies, especially in this economy. SMs will get releases every year. Sorry. If you don't like that, pick another game.

Until that company inevitably goes under.

Sorry mate disagree with some of your comments...

THe its a Business side of your comment its well covered by Kilkrazy last post.

As for - Dont like so pick another game from other company ( that will inevitably go under) comment really not that accurate and kind of strange.

Sure some will go under for bad management or crappy product but Go compare the loss of sales GW position with the Problems to meet increased high demand for FOW and warmachine hordes goods... these are the few we know a bit but things like malifaux or infinity also seem to be going just fine... and seem to be growing...

Sorry to say but "inevitably" there will always be people that only see what they want to believe in.

Fafnir wrote:Where as there's a wealth of xenos that could be interesting, but never gets touched. Half the stuff doesn't even have a model

Like what? Tau, Necrons, Orks & Eldar have pretty much everything (barring some wargear options like warlocks on jetbikes).
Nid's are waiting on three MCs and some special characters.
DE are the only ones waiting on a significant proportion of their models but that's to be expected after a major re-boot like that.

Navarro, this board is packed with comments from members, seemingly astonished that GW would ignore all of these awesome armies to just make Marines. The perpetual ignorance towards sound business practices, the frequent business advice, almost all of which is tailored toward some notion of getting x army some love, indicates that some people might be insane, in the classic definition. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

As for my snarky comment at the end, it was made in general. I think it is gteat that Warmachine and FoW are doing well. Confrontation and Starship Troopers were great once. Here is a question...which of GW's competitors.existed in 2004? How about in 1998? How about in 1991? You may not like their business practices, but they have proved to be a lot better than their competitors over the years.

Malice did not drive my comment. I hope the games people play last forever. I think competition is the best thing for this little industry. But in my time in the hobby, the competitors keep changing. Except GW.

So, a plea to those without a degree in finance, business, or at least some analytical background, please don't give business advice to the successful company that has currently outlasted all tabletop competitors.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Where as there's a wealth of xenos that could be interesting, but never gets touched. Half the stuff doesn't even have a model

Like what? Tau, Necrons, Orks & Eldar have pretty much everything (barring some wargear options like warlocks on jetbikes).
Nid's are waiting on three MCs and some special characters.
DE are the only ones waiting on a significant proportion of their models but that's to be expected after a major re-boot like that.

"Half the stuff" is something of an exaggeration.

The Nids are missing the Tervigon -- an absolutely key unit -- and the Tyrannofex which is less important. I can't remember the third one.

Tau have their entire range partly because it is a very small range. That's not necessarily a good thing in itself.

On the plus side, when the Tau range is expanded (as it surely will be with a new book) they're likely to have a model for everything and continue in that fashion.

Ouze wrote:.... WHFB players ....? I wonder how linked the demographics are to simply what's in the starter box.

I bought the AoBR box for the rules, to learn how to play.I intended to play Eldar from the start.

But now, after 6 weeks, I'm buying more Marines, as they were so easy to put together, and play from the start.
I have bought more SMs to go with them, and only a half squad of DA are painted up. My Eldar aren't ready to play, and I'm getting more and more SMs, due to buying the AoBR box :(

Kilkrazy wrote:The Nids are missing the Tervigon -- an absolutely key unit -- and the Tyrannofex which is less important. I can't remember the third one.

Harpy.

One could argue Tyranid Prime as well or does that come under the flag of special character?

It's just a Warrior, which you could add more fancy parts or paint differently to represent IIRC.

Orks are missing Wazdakka Gutsmek & Flash Gits. One sucks and one is an IC, so whatever. More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Those are ones I'd press for hard - I think not having a non-FW release of Nob Bikers is leaving money on the table.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Nids are missing the Tervigon -- an absolutely key unit -- and the Tyrannofex which is less important. I can't remember the third one.

Harpy.

none of which will most likely be in the next codex...

CT GAMER wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Nids are missing the Tervigon -- an absolutely key unit -- and the Tyrannofex which is less important. I can't remember the third one.

Harpy.

none of which will most likely be in the next codex...

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Don't forget Doom of Malan'tai and mycetic spore as well ... Swarmlord you need extra parts for as the Tyrant set doesn't have enough boneswords. Ymgarls - you will struggle to get the heads.

Also, most essential model is the hive guard which are metal single miniatures!

dienekes96 wrote:Navarro, this board is packed with comments from members, seemingly astonished that GW would ignore all of these awesome armies to just make Marines. The perpetual ignorance towards sound business practices, the frequent business advice, almost all of which is tailored toward some notion of getting x army some love, indicates that some people might be insane, in the classic definition. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

As for my snarky comment at the end, it was made in general. I think it is gteat that Warmachine and FoW are doing well. Confrontation and Starship Troopers were great once. Here is a question...which of GW's competitors.existed in 2004? How about in 1998? How about in 1991? You may not like their business practices, but they have proved to be a lot better than their competitors over the years.

Malice did not drive my comment. I hope the games people play last forever. I think competition is the best thing for this little industry. But in my time in the hobby, the competitors keep changing. Except GW.

So, a plea to those without a degree in finance, business, or at least some analytical background, please don't give business advice to the successful company that has currently outlasted all tabletop competitors.

Good to know there was no malice in your words, like many that like to put down GW for the sake of it theres also way to many people considering GW competitors a bad thing and as such they have some strange pleasure when things go under.
Yes GW is the older and biggest on the chart of wargamming ( but small comparing with toy companies) some business along these years didnt make it in the past, but I strongly believe the times are diferent today.
Theres a much more informed community and information about new Wgames are wide available now... In the past you had a store that carried GW and maybe some ralpharta ADD minis but that was it... today things are just not quite like that.

Reaper managed to surf the years and Warmachine has some respectable years on its back... and I believe if it wasnt the stupidity of Rackham ppp they would still be around also... Not sure about historicals but they have some old companies if Im not mistaken.
Yes GW got fat on the right moment and with almost no competition and that can make all the diference.

And just a little comment I believe GW biggest competitor is GW itself... today mistakes are payed dearly and small competitors will jump on GW neck at any chance... very diferent from the past.

You base your all argumentation on the fact GW outlast everyone else in the past but the thing is... the present and future are quite diferent beasts to handle and in the present moment people see GW slipping... THe mentality that things dont change is also very present in your line of arguments I tend to disagree with that, if anything I learned on my life as someone that has a company is that it only takes 2 planes to change the world and its economics.

I wouldn't say Ymgarl's and Doom are exactly deserving of a kit each though, both are capably made from the existing models.

Tyrannofex, Tervigon and Harpys however are a whole different issue though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one is saying SMs shouldn't get releases. They are saying that non-SMs should get releases as well.

I say we should just leave it at that IMHO.

No no no it's not because GW is pushing SM onto every one or that the SM are more popular.

The SM are just fulfilling their duty to rid the universe of the Xenos, heretics and the weak.

But to be fair all BA need are a free pdf with rules for : storm raven, baal pred, death company and DC dred.

Codex (colour) Marines is a bit of a joke. Assuming I'm not using vulkan he'stan I can more accurately represent my salamanders with the BA codex since their tac squads can have two special weapons. (which salamanders could in 3rd edition!) Tis a farce.

Space Marine was a great game, but let's face it, the Space Marines were just a way to field a Titan...(damned Special cards)

ruminator wrote:Don't forget Doom of Malan'tai and mycetic spore as well ... Swarmlord you need extra parts for as the Tyrant set doesn't have enough boneswords. Ymgarls - you will struggle to get the heads.

Also, most essential model is the hive guard which are metal single miniatures!

Doom and Swarmlord are special characters, Ymargl stealers have a model, even if it's not convenient. Likewise, Hive Guard are available, even if they could do with a plastic kit. Good point on the spod though.

Ouze wrote:More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Well, they're pretty easy to build: nob bodies from boys spures, arms from nob sprues, etc. Use the remaining nob bodies to build upgrade nobs or foot nob squads.

It's not the most convenient, but it's kind of like saying there is no Missile Launcher Long Fang kit.

The lack of a warboss biker, IMO, is more pressing, but even that is a simple conversion.

games workshop focuses on SM for one simple reason: laziness.

all you need to release a new SM variant codex (i.e. BA, DA, BT, SW, etc.) is new shoulder pads and maybe a new vehicle or two. the overall model is roughly the same with maybe a robe or a new helmet.

I say again, GW space mari--- er, product designers are as lazy as a plaguebearer on vicoden.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Doom and Swarmlord are special characters

Does that stop GW from releasing dozens of Space Marine special character models? No, so why should every other race have to do without?

Tyranids deserve a swarmlord if Space Marines deserve...I'll be damned if I even go through the effort of naming them all.

That goes for the prime, too. Maybe it is just a warrior with fancy bits, but on the same token so is every other Space Marine character: it's a Space Marine with bling. So everyone saying they don't "need" this or that because it's a character and can be converted, keep that in mind next time you're fielding your Vulkan or Seth army.

Polonius wrote:
The lack of a warboss biker, IMO, is more pressing, but even that is a simple conversion.

Considering how absolutely beautiful the forge world model is, I'm willing to let this one go. It may be expensive as all hell, but I'll be damned if it's not gorgeous. Next to the Krieg Qaurtermaster and Eldar Avatar (you're next!), it's probably the best model that Forgeworld's put out.

Sidstyler wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
Doom and Swarmlord are special characters

Does that stop GW from releasing dozens of Space Marine special character models? No, so why should every other race have to do without?

Tyranids deserve a swarmlord if Space Marines deserve...I'll be damned if I even go through the effort of naming them all.

That goes for the prime, too. Maybe it is just a warrior with fancy bits, but on the same token so is every other Space Marine character: it's a Space Marine with bling. So everyone saying they don't "need" this or that because it's a character and can be converted, keep that in mind next time you're fielding your Vulkan or Seth army.

that's a bit hyperbolic. Look at Blood Angels: they got the Sanguinor, Astaroth, Seth, and Lemartes as special characters. Teh only other metal models they got were the Sang Priest (direct only) and the Vanguard Vet Sargeant. Space Wolves got Canis, Njal, and Lukas as SCs, with the wolf guard with claws the only other new metal. Marines (5th) got Sicarius, Vulkan, Khan, Cassius, Pedro, Telion and Chronus as Special Characters, but also got Legion of the Damned, Sternguard, Vanguards, and the Thunderfire as metals. In comparison, the Nids got Pyrovore, Venomthrope, , Hive Guard, and the Biovore in metal. Given the size and bulk of Nid metals, they got comparable metal support to Wolves and Angels, but far less than marines.

Now, compare plastics. Angels got the Baal, the Furioso, Death Company, Sang Guard. Wolves got Wolf Packs and Wolf Guard Termies. Marines got the Drop Pod, the Redeemer, Scout bikes, and the landspeeder storm. Nids got Gargoyles, Ravenors, and the Trygon. This time they are third out of four.

So, Nid support was far under that of SM, but generally greater than wolves and slighly less than blood angels. Keep in mind with the special characters that one reason they're so popular for GW is that many people buy them for non-gaming reasons.

Or for other games, some of the Tyranid metal figures, got sorta jacked by my DM for D&D uses, otherwise they sat on the shelf next to all the guys I painted because I thought they looked cool.

There are too many space marines around. Merge the books already, but that won't happen since GW is a company that needs profit.

All we can hope for is that after GK it's all xenos until there's no xenos to update left.

Ouze wrote:Orks are missing Wazdakka Gutsmek & Flash Gits. One sucks and one is an IC, so whatever. More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Those are ones I'd press for hard - I think not having a non-FW release of Nob Bikers is leaving money on the table.

IIRC, there is a Flash Git model. It's not bad, but it's metal so forget about loota conversions without it being a PitA. Sigh.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440268a&prodId=prod650001a

I don't mind that they make a ton of marine variants, but why not release variant for other armies as well? Like for Chaos, you could have different god, or the Lost and the Damned. For Orks, make a Codex for Feral Orks or Speed Freaks specifically. Eldar craftworlds could work too. Even if they were just PDFs I'd be happy.

Polonius wrote:

Ouze wrote:More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Well, they're pretty easy to build: nob bodies from boys spures, arms from nob sprues, etc. Use the remaining nob bodies to build upgrade nobs or foot nob squads.

It's not the most convenient, but it's kind of like saying there is no Missile Launcher Long Fang kit.

It's kind of not, actually. One is possibly the best unit in the book, the other is a single piece of wargear (which is, in fact, represented in the Devastator kit). And, yes, I'm aware you can convert your own, but you could do that for freaking anything; the point is they have no non-resin models. Here's another analogy: lets pretend there are no sternguard available for Space Marines, and a strenous argument was present there don't need to be, since you can just add some extra purity seals to some tactical marines... right?

Doctor Optimal wrote:

IIRC, there is a Flash Git model. It's not bad, but it's metal so forget about loota conversions without it being a PitA. Sigh.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440268a&prodId=prod650001a

Yeah, I forgot that direct-only guy. You can in fact spend minimum $82 up to $165 for 5 to 10 of the exact same unipose Flash Git. Not an attractive option, but it is an option, which makes you technically right: and that's the best kind of right.

Ouze wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Ouze wrote:More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Well, they're pretty easy to build: nob bodies from boys spures, arms from nob sprues, etc. Use the remaining nob bodies to build upgrade nobs or foot nob squads.

It's not the most convenient, but it's kind of like saying there is no Missile Launcher Long Fang kit.

It's kind of not, actually. One is possibly the best unit in the book, the other is a single piece of wargear (which is, in fact, represented in the Devastator kit). And, yes, I'm aware you can convert your own, but you could do that for freaking anything; the point is they have no non-resin models. Here's another analogy: lets pretend there are no sternguard available for Space Marines, and a strenous argument was present there don't need to be, since you can just add some extra purity seals to some tactical marines... right?

yeah, there's a missile launcher in the devestator box. Just like there's a nob in the biker box...

And isn't that what everybody does for their sternguard?

Phototoxin wrote:...I can more accurately represent my salamanders with the BA codex since their tac squads can have two special weapons...

Blood Angels tactical squads can't do that.

Would it be logical to use this newer graph on page two to surmise what codex's are next for update?

From the lowest releases per race:

0 - Demonhunters, Witchunters, Tau

1 - Necrons, CSM

2- Eldar

Wouldn't it be funny if this information could be extrapolated to figure out estimates on codex releases?

Ouze wrote:

Doctor Optimal wrote:

IIRC, there is a Flash Git model. It's not bad, but it's metal so forget about loota conversions without it being a PitA. Sigh.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440268a&prodId=prod650001a

Yeah, I forgot that direct-only guy. You can in fact spend minimum $82 up to $165 for 5 to 10 of the exact same unipose Flash Git. Not an attractive option, but it is an option, which makes you technically right: and that's the best kind of right.

Hey, why so serious? Also, who fields Flash Gits? Also, who fields Flash Gits that aren't just Lootas with gold teef and pirate hats?

Just to play devil's advocate and still show how the stats are skewed, as Forgeworld to begin with is skewed towards Imperial forces to begin with. Their release schedule does not coincide with the main release schedule for Warhammer 40K. Forgeworld has their own books and their own timeline for releases. Same reason I will argue that GW hasn't released 5 warriors/demons of chaos in 2011 - Warhammer Forge released several models that aren't readily available to everyone and the rules for most of them cannot be used in a tournament unless you count it as a generic version. With the release of the two Badab War books and the final Krieg books, of course there was going to be a large influx of marines and imperial guard strictly because their books have traditionally always included a guard, marine, and one xenos in each book.

Ouze wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Ouze wrote:More pressingly, there are no Nob Biker models - thats kind a rough one, as they are one of the best units in the book by general opinion. Having them available at super-high prices via FW is better then nothing, but not as good as a plastic release, obviously.

Well, they're pretty easy to build: nob bodies from boys spures, arms from nob sprues, etc. Use the remaining nob bodies to build upgrade nobs or foot nob squads.

It's not the most convenient, but it's kind of like saying there is no Missile Launcher Long Fang kit.

It's kind of not, actually. One is possibly the best unit in the book, the other is a single piece of wargear (which is, in fact, represented in the Devastator kit). And, yes, I'm aware you can convert your own, but you could do that for freaking anything; the point is they have no non-resin models. Here's another analogy: lets pretend there are no sternguard available for Space Marines, and a strenous argument was present there don't need to be, since you can just add some extra purity seals to some tactical marines... right?

Actually, yes. The sternguard models don't have the wargear that people would want. I don't know anyone that bought them - they all converted their own.

And there is a biker nob model. So, what's the problem exactly?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

2.) Same as above. Although I would imagine their sales improving if they had lowered the price to around that of normal toy hobbies rather than as a sort of luxury item.

You're going to have to explain this line to me. I'm also in a "normal toy hobby", namely collecting Transformers, and to complete lines is as, if not MORE, expensive than building a GW army(to be fair, I don't complete lines). For example, the average Hasbro wave is 4 Deluxes(12.99 USD Retail), 2 Voyagers(21.99 USD Retail), 4 Scouts(7.99 USD Retail, IIRC), and 4 Legends(4.99 USD Retail). That's $147.86 a month before tax(and shipping if you pre-order), assuming you can find the whole wave and other fans or scalpers don't beat you to it.

Add in retailer exclusives for various stores(normally K-mart, Walmart, Target, and TRU), Takara exclusives(Importing for a deluxe is around $35 USD, $50 USD for a Voyager, $100-150 USD for Japanese Retailer Exclusives), Botcon exclusives(some demanding $200-300 USD a figure on the secondary, $300+ USD just to get in the con itself if you want the exclusives)and SDCC exclusives, and that builds up fast. Throw in vintage G1 figures(complete headmasters range around $70-100 USD, on the extreme end Fortress Maximus demands $1500 USD complete) and you'll be needing a second mortgage.

Trust me, GW IS priced around that of "normal" toy hobbies. At least most GW OOP and vintage figures don't regularly jump 100-300% their original retail value(see Classics Ramjet, who's running around $85 USD up from his retail of $9.99 USD from 2006 or so). And Hasbro US does "price adjustments" almost as often as GW does.

More blood for the bloodgod?

Platuan4th wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

2.) Same as above. Although I would imagine their sales improving if they had lowered the price to around that of normal toy hobbies rather than as a sort of luxury item.

You're going to have to explain this line to me. I'm also in a "normal toy hobby"

I know, wargaming is not an expensive hobby. It really isn't expensive at all compared to any hobby that I've been involved in.

Even compared to toys I don't see it as expensive.

This costs £10 (compared to a squad of 10 IG or 13 Orks for £12)

I agree with Killkrazy and think he makes a sensible point- the problem isn't nessicarily the volume of space marine releases, it's the slowness of the schedule as a whole. They need to employ more creative people, I feel, and get more releases out. The current schedule is much too slow, and it makes the "marine dominance" worse. It would be much easier to tolerate (or even enjoy) if Xenos players weren't waiting so long with no love.
We need to pull this above petty factionalism as a debate, because the real problem is structural within GW. They have fired or not hired enough creative people to meet their needs.

Honestly, I think we're up to our neck in what we've seen from the 'more creative people'. I'd rather see a slowdown than a speed-up.

Compare the quality of the most recent Xenos codex in terms of fluff, etc to the most recent Imperial one(Blood Angels).

Admittedly: Dark Eldar waited a long time.

But wouldn't you say that book was worth the wait?

Parts of the Blood Angels book (and from what we've seen so far, the entire Grey Knights book as well) should be taken out back behind GW Nottingham, blindfolded and have a round put into them Old Yeller style. The fluff needs work, the rules need work, the book in general was just poorly done.

Kanluwen wrote:

Admittedly: Dark Eldar waited a long time.

But wouldn't you say that book was worth the wait?

Quite frankly, no. Its not like it takes years and years to come up with this stuff, really.

Edit: I should qualify that. It was nice to finally see the DE book, don't get me wrong. I just don't see 12 years worth of quality there to justify the wait.

To be fair: Dark Eldar had supposedly been 'done' for at least a year or two previous. They just waited for a release slot they could use.

But there has to be some kind of balance to strike. Because frankly, the Grey Knights book is looking to be a piece of crap that should be taken back to the drawing
board.

The models themselves could be released with no real issue, but the book needs to be taken back to the printer.

Kanluwen wrote:To be fair: Dark Eldar had supposedly been 'done' for at least a year or two previous. They just waited for a release slot they could use.

But there has to be some kind of balance to strike. Because frankly, the Grey Knights book is looking to be a piece of crap that should be taken back to the drawing
board.

The models themselves could be released with no real issue, but the book needs to be taken back to the printer.

But one could say that for the past few codexes (codices?) really. Similar complaints have been made about BA, SW and Tyranid codexes (either the complaint that they are bland or overpowered). But even accepting the couple of years that the DE codex may have been ready, did it really take 10 years to release?

filbert wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:To be fair: Dark Eldar had supposedly been 'done' for at least a year or two previous. They just waited for a release slot they could use.

But there has to be some kind of balance to strike. Because frankly, the Grey Knights book is looking to be a piece of crap that should be taken back to the drawing
board.

The models themselves could be released with no real issue, but the book needs to be taken back to the printer.

But one could say that for the past few codexes (codices?) really. Similar complaints have been made about BA, SW and Tyranid codexes (either the complaint that they are bland or overpowered). But even accepting the couple of years that the DE codex may have been ready, did it really take 10 years to release?

With Dark Eldar, it's kind of a hectic situation from what I've been able to ascertain. They had the codex ready very early on in that cycle, they had some models that they could release...but then they decided to go back to the drawing board and it was left to stagnate for awhile.

Then Goodwin and Kelly got the project back and lit a fire under it, for us to get the finalized product. Which--quite frankly--I feel is an example of the quality that every book could benefit from.

Bear in mind: when I say "some kind of balance to strike" I'm not necessarily referring to the game balance. With Grey Knights, I'm referring to the absolute bitchslap that they gave the existing fluff and premise of the army courtesy of Matt Ward's ridiculous need to overcompensate the 'differences between X Marines and Y Marines'.

Space Wolves, I felt, was a good showcase of how a Marine Variant can be Marines...but not Marines as we knew them.

Is it just me or have all the 5th edition books been like this? The non-marine stuff has been good to excellent while the SM books seem to be getting worse.

Codex SM replaced the very flexible 4th edition book and the endless SM lists of 3rd with one that encouraged cookie cutter 10 man squads and replaces chapter rules with special characters.

Codex SW has cool ideas and then some unbalanced crap.

Codex BA was just an abomination in fluff and rules.

And now Codex GK looks even worse.

IS it a coincidence that it coincides with a number of key personalities parting company with GW or am I reading too much into this?

filbert wrote:IS it a coincidence that it coincides with a number of key personalities parting company with GW or am I reading too much into this?

I think you're reading too much into it.

While I disagree with Kid Kyoto about Codex: Space Marines proper and Space Wolves(which, aside from the hideous Thunderwolf model, has been pretty nice in all actuality)--he's right about BA and GK.

And what do those two books have in common?

MATT WARD!

Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, I think we're up to our neck in what we've seen from the 'more creative people'. I'd rather see a slowdown than a speed-up.

Compare the quality of the most recent Xenos codex in terms of fluff, etc to the most recent Imperial one(Blood Angels).

Admittedly: Dark Eldar waited a long time.

But wouldn't you say that book was worth the wait?

....

I'm not interested in fluff, so I say it was a waste of 10 years.

Obviously there are people who are interested in fluff. However, as Filbert has pointed out it's not hard to write. It's just a bit of fiction set in a known background, and requires no playtesting.

How many Black Library novels do GW publish a year? I don't know, but there are 45 40K novels and anthologies in print or "coming soon" right now. That ignores all the CS Goto works. Each of those books contains as much fluff as a single codex.

Counting books that are already "in print" is a bit disingenuous if you're asking "how many Black Library novels do GW publish a year?".

Many of the books currently in print have been in print for years.

There are also many books OOP.

My point is that fluff is fiction and it's easy to get hold of. You hire an SF writer, give him a style guide, and off he goes.

There is no justification for holding up a codex for years because of the need for good quality fluff.

But that wasn't what held the Dark Eldar book up and you know that.

It was held up because of the models themselves firstly, then secondly because they didn't necessarily know if it would be well-received.

Kanluwen wrote:But that wasn't what held the Dark Eldar book up and you know that.

It was held up because of the models themselves firstly, then secondly because they didn't necessarily know if it would be well-received.

If those were the reasons, then they are frankly incomprehensible.

Most of the model range already existed. It didn't need or have to be re-done. They could just have easily have released the rules and updated the old models as and when.

As for being well received? Its not like a codex is a massive financial investment like a new plastic mould, for example. If GW are honestly scared to release new material for exisitng armies for fear that it might not sell, then they really are in the wrong business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally, I think the GW bean counters were trying to squat DE on the sly, in much the same way as I think they would rather do other less popular armies like Sisters, for example. The only reason they didn't manage to do so was for a vocal minority in the Studio who champion them.

Kan, I think you misunderstood me. When I said I wanted more creative types, I didn't mean I wanted more Matt Wards. Matt Ward is (from what I gather) a playtester turned games designer. I think they need people like him, but I think writing an entire codex is the wrong job for him. They (seem to) need division of labour and a bit more creative control. Given what other companies manage, I think GW should be capable of getting out a few more books per year. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but the current cycle is really desperately slow and it renders the game stagnant, especially when every second release is WTF Marines.
I'm a fan of the Space Marine codex, just for the record. It has some cringeworthy fluff, but on the whole I think it and the Ork book are about where GW should be trying to land ALL of their books. I think the problem with Blood Angels and Space Wolves is that they are not very interesting really to start with, so the fluff feels forced because the very idea of them getting their own, full fledged codex IS forced. This is of course an old and tired argument, and we've all heard the rebuttals. I feel bad for even bringing it up again.

Kanluwen wrote:But that wasn't what held the Dark Eldar book up and you know that.

It was held up because of the models themselves firstly, then secondly because they didn't necessarily know if it would be well-received.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It doesn't take 12 years to make some models.

What is market research for, if not to know if something will be well received?

Maybe Deldar were held up by publishing so many SM codexes and models.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that wasn't what held the Dark Eldar book up and you know that.

It was held up because of the models themselves firstly, then secondly because they didn't necessarily know if it would be well-received.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It doesn't take 12 years to make some models.

I didn't say it did. I said that the main hold-up was because of the models. The second hold-up was because they didn't know if it would be well-received. Which, frankly, is a valid concern.

What is market research for, if not to know if something will be well received?

Because clearly, asking the miniatures wargaming crowd if they want something means that it will be a financial success. Let's go talk to Mongoose Publishing and see how that Starship Troopers game is faring, shall we?

Maybe Deldar were held up by publishing so many SM codexes and models.

There was all of what 5 SM codices? Something like that within the timeframe, with maybe three of them having even a fraction of the 'full model' support that we're currently seeing with Dark Eldar.

It had nothing to do with Space Marines. It had everything, however, to do with them trying to change Dark Eldar from just being "spiky Eldar" to something actually worth having as its own book rather than just an addendum to the Eldar book.

You know, give it the whole "Space Marine" treatment to use a popular terminology.

Da Boss wrote:Kan, I think you misunderstood me. When I said I wanted more creative types, I didn't mean I wanted more Matt Wards. Matt Ward is (from what I gather) a playtester turned games designer. I think they need people like him, but I think writing an entire codex is the wrong job for him. They (seem to) need division of labour and a bit more creative control. Given what other companies manage, I think GW should be capable of getting out a few more books per year. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but the current cycle is really desperately slow and it renders the game stagnant, especially when every second release is WTF Marines.

I might have misunderstood you. But I was just using Matt Ward as an example of the fact that they seem to be delegating more and more work to each author in an attempt to shove more books out of the door.

When it comes to rules? He can do just fine. The Space Marines book is an example of that. But when it comes to fluff accompanying those rules...he does abysmal if he's not supervised closely.

Da Boss wrote:I'm a fan of the Space Marine codex, just for the record. It has some cringeworthy fluff, but on the whole I think it and the Ork book are about where GW should be trying to land ALL of their books. I think the problem with Blood Angels and Space Wolves is that they are not very interesting really to start with, so the fluff feels forced because the very idea of them getting their own, full fledged codex IS forced. This is of course an old and tired argument, and we've all heard the rebuttals. I feel bad for even bringing it up again.

Space Wolves, in terms of fluff, was perfectly acceptable. The only 'iffy' part is Thunderwolf Cavalry--which could certainly be justified in fluff. Just not with Wolfy McWolferton Riding A Wolf With Wolves. Phil Kelly, otherwise does pretty well in sticking with the established fluff and fleshing it out a bit more.

With Blood Angels, in terms of fluff, the problem is that Matt Ward seems to have tried too hard to make it clear that they're superbadarse. Then of course there's the 'Blood' prefix being overused for weapons...

But yeah. Marines/Orks are a good benchmark and they should be trying to balance around those two books rather than trying to top them.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that wasn't what held the Dark Eldar book up and you know that.

It was held up because of the models themselves firstly, then secondly because they didn't necessarily know if it would be well-received.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It doesn't take 12 years to make some models.

I didn't say it did. I said that the main hold-up was because of the models. The second hold-up was because they didn't know if it would be well-received. Which, frankly, is a valid concern.

What is market research for, if not to know if something will be well received?

Because clearly, asking the miniatures wargaming crowd if they want something means that it will be a financial success. Let's go talk to Mongoose Publishing and see how that Starship Troopers game is faring, shall we?

What failing?

That the people in charge of that particular book(Andy Chambers being chief among them from what I recall--before y'know, he left the company and the project was shelved until Phil Kelly and Jes Goodwin could convince them to fully back it) wanted to take an approach that wasn't just "recycle the fluff, add a few new models and units to the book--call it a day"?

Heavens to Betsy, we can't have that!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and by the by: the failing of Starship Troopers wasn't Mongoose exclusively.

The biggest failing, at least that I can express myself since I did attempt to organize demo games etc was that shops and players just weren't interested in stocking it.

Or they were held up by their own unprofitability. Maybe the market research indicated that the resources of a tiny corporation like GW were better spent on more profitable products.

Maybe I'm on my own here, but I really can't afford buying stuff from FW. Living in the states, paying the currency difference PLUS shipping over the pond really adds up and keeps me from snagging things that I'd really like, even if it IS the only release Tau or Eldar are ever going to get.

That said, I don't think that FW should be a viable area to point to when you're defending the release schedule. If my FLGS can't get it in, than chances are I can't buy it! So if GW release 50 Space Marine things and only 20 Non-Space Marine things, than myself and people like me just get screwed over.

What's the take away message from this thread? If you like Marines, you're gold. If you don't like Marines, be prepared to wait 12 years for an update or just find a new game to play.

As was mentioned earlier; if they can balance fantasy, without all the favoritism for one ethos, why not in 40k?

They've got themselves in a vicious cricle where they've pushed marines for so long and so strenuously that they're now a victim of their own success in that most players want marines. Marine vs. Marine is boring so to liven it up they have to do some insane crap like flying FnP bubbles and walking decepticons that can teleport and have 50 guns (hyperbole). Dark Angel players should be getting ready for some true insanity as well as SoB players because by the time they're updated, stores will probably have to buy bigger tables just for the new Ultra-powered Sister Superior unit that's 4' high and has 20 rail-gun power weapons that can all be shot int he same turn and ignore cover...or some such nonsense.

Regardless of the reasons for the marine love, it makes the game boring when 90% of the players in a community are some form of Marine. Gee, you've got Red Marines and I've got Silver Marines and they look nearly exactly the same from 5 feet away....except for the color of their armor, but I guess that's important somehow.

/rant

filbert wrote:They could just have easily have released the rules and updated the old models as and when.

This would have resulted in DE models that were substantially worse. Part of the reason the DE are such an excellent release is because they didn't just re-sculpt here and there; they sat down and re-thought the entire line. That means stylistically they fit together because the artists now understand what being Dark Eldar in the 40K background means, as opposed to in 3rd edition when the only thing the studio really seems to have understood about them is their gameplay. It also means that they can mechanically fit together and design all of their arms/heads/weapons/etc to fit across the line. And with excellent background and excellent models, it was only a natural next step for GW to give them interesting gameplay mechanics. Taking the time to approach the line as a whole has made the DE better than the sum of their parts, and they are now one of the best success stories GW has had recently (even if I don't like the beasts or beastmaster).

I'm actually kinda with Kan here. Rushing to re-design half of their product line every 5 years is resulting in reduced quality for GW, and it's over-emphasizing SM because SM are the easiest kits to re-make as Jes has already built power armour templates to make sculpting space marines much easier. It means SM are the low-hanging fruit they have to re-release to keep the easy money coming in to stay afloat long enough to get to the more complex (model-wise) armies.

I would much rather see GW slow down and give their IP the time it deserves, rather than rush the Blood Angel Garbage Scow and the Grey Knight Voltron out the door because someone in accounting thinks all of us need something new to buy. I mean, surely all of the design work that goes into a lackluster release is still expensive, right? Why not slow down and make sure that the release is something we'll actually want to spend money on? I would happily wait 7 years for a model redesign if I knew my armies would get the DE treatment, as opposed to say the Beastman treatment.

If the risk to slowing down is that GW doesn't have enough new product coming out to sustain themselves financially or that the players need more things to keep the game interesting, why not make up for a slower army-schedule by more frequent variant rules releases and more scenery/conversion/Armageddon kits. Heck, they could even let their newly-hired talent cut their teeth on smaller games like Space Hulk or BFG/Epic/Mordheim/etc. Bringing back those sorts of games would introduce a lot more game play variety, would keep regular releases coming out, and give GW a hook to catch the "casual" miniature player market again. The great thing about those games is if someone screws up the game design, just stop supporting it and put the existing units in the bargain bin (perhaps direct-only from the GW website, and used as promotional giveaways to make players think they're getting something a little extra for their money). There's no need to support each game long-term, so there's a lot less risk to those sorts of games than there is to the GW core lines.

Platuan4th wrote:snip

Holy gak, lol, thanks for reminding me. I just remembered I bought a Transformers toy years ago (the classics line Rodimus) and I checked eBay to see how much it would sell new in the package, and I saw listings between $66-89.

I bought that thing at random just because, and stuck it in my closet and forget about it I guess. I should have bought the whole set apparently, lol.

Kanluwen wrote:What failing?

That the people in charge of that particular book(Andy Chambers being chief among them from what I recall--before y'know, he left the company and the project was shelved until Phil Kelly and Jes Goodwin could convince them to fully back it) wanted to take an approach that wasn't just "recycle the fluff, add a few new models and units to the book--call it a day"?

Heavens to Betsy, we can't have that!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and by the by: the failing of Starship Troopers wasn't Mongoose exclusively.

The biggest failing, at least that I can express myself since I did attempt to organize demo games etc was that shops and players just weren't interested in stocking it.

12 years to get a book out?

I'm a bit surprised you don't see that as a problem.

Of course I see it as a problem. But considering that it was one of a very few instances where that's been the case--it's an exception, not the rule.

To use it as an example of some kind of necessary reshuffling of GW's priorities is disingenuous.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

Yes but then we come to the chicken or the egg coming first question- are space marines popular therefore GW supports them, or Because GW gives them so much support then any other army it makes it popular?

I understand the need to maintain quality, but I think it would be possible to do that, and keep products coming out at a better pace if GW hired some more creative people to work for them. There is certainly a pool of talent out there, and I feel that getting more releases out would pay for the new staff. I could be wrong. It's just my gut feeling.
Jes Goodwin and Phil Kelly can't do everything, so the trick is to hire more talent to help them out!

I'm using it as an example of un-necessary reshuffling of GW's priorities.

This thread is a complaint that too many SM books / too few Xenos books are published.

A 12 year gap for Dark Eldar does nothing to undermine that theory.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm using it as an example of un-necessary reshuffling of GW's priorities.

This thread is a complaint that too many SM books / too few Xenos books are published.

A 12 year gap for Dark Eldar does nothing to undermine that theory.

How many non-Marine books were published during that period?

Two Tyranid books, an Orks book, an Eldar book, two Tau books(admittedly: the second one really didn't add much), two Imperial Guard books, Daemonhunters and Witchhunters both(which, again: didn't really 'add much' to each other. You could argue them to be SM variants simply because both contained power armour--but those books were all over the damn place when it came down to it), and the Chaos Daemons book.

That's 11 "non-Marine/Xenos" books in that timeframe.

We had two Space Marines books, two Chaos Marines books, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. That's 8 Marine books--discounting the 'minidexes' that existed prior to the non-Codex Chapters getting their own full sized books within that timeframe.

It's close to being absurd yes, but it's not really up to 'unacceptable' levels in my eyes.

The book that Beastmen got was a fething joke.

Terribly written, overcosted units all around.

Andy Hoare and Phill Kelly need to stay away from me and my Beastmen.

Andy Hoare needs to stick to writing background, because he can't write rules for crap.

Sidstyler wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:snip

Holy gak, lol, thanks for reminding me. I just remembered I bought a Transformers toy years ago (the classics line Rodimus) and I checked eBay to see how much it would sell new in the package, and I saw listings between $66-89.

I bought that thing at random just because, and stuck it in my closet and forget about it I guess. I should have bought the whole set apparently, lol.

And think, he(Classics Roddy) was only going for $35-40 until Fansproject( a 3rd party company akin to Chapterhouse and the like) announced this set to upgrade him to Rodimus Prime:



It's a great set, if a little pricy. Got one for my Roddy(plus the "Sidearm" set for his Weaponmaster partner from Season 4).

Polonius wrote:...

I haven't actually added it up, but I'd wager that if you added up all the dedicated kits for SM varients, you'd get roughly the same amount as something like Orks.

I mean, for plastic you have:
Wolf Packs
Wolf Terminators
Sanguinary Guard
Baal Predator
Stormraven (sort of?)
Death Company
DA upgrade
RW upgrade
BT upgrade

Compare to Orks:
Boys
Nobs
Trukk
Battle Wagon
Skorcha
Buggy
Bikes
Storm boys
Lootas
Grots

The point is, in terms of model support (by far the bulk of an armies development cost) all non-chaos MEQ variants roughly cost the same as a full new army.

Buggies dont count. Same with skortcha- werent both those made back in 2nd or 3rd edition?

Agreed xenos need more love. Tyrannids and Dark Eldar need to convert a lot of models.

Dark Eldar still have a large amount of releases completed and waiting for an 'appropriate' release framework.

And that's directly from the man in charge of overseeing the model lineup, Jes Goodwin.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm using it as an example of un-necessary reshuffling of GW's priorities.

This thread is a complaint that too many SM books / too few Xenos books are published.

A 12 year gap for Dark Eldar does nothing to undermine that theory.

How many non-Marine books were published during that period?

Two Tyranid books, an Orks book, an Eldar book, two Tau books(admittedly: the second one really didn't add much), two Imperial Guard books, Daemonhunters and Witchhunters both(which, again: didn't really 'add much' to each other. You could argue them to be SM variants simply because both contained power armour--but those books were all over the damn place when it came down to it), and the Chaos Daemons book.

That's 11 "non-Marine/Xenos" books in that timeframe.

We had two Space Marines books, two Chaos Marines books, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. That's 8 Marine books--discounting the 'minidexes' that existed prior to the non-Codex Chapters getting their own full sized books within that timeframe.

It's close to being absurd yes, but it's not really up to 'unacceptable' levels in my eyes.

Using Lexicanum.com as the source, I found the release of all codexes from 3rd edition to the present. I have excluded the new GK as it is not yet published.

37 books were published including two as PDF format collected out of WD.

The division by faction was:

13 Loyalist Space Marines = 35.1%
3 Chaos SM = 8.1%
7 Imperial books not including SM = 18.9%
This included Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Assassins, and two Catachan books.

14 Xeno = 37.8%
1 Chaos Daemon = 2.7%

I then worked out the gaps between codex releases for SM and for Xeno. The wait for Xeno codexes is 1.27 x the wait for SM codexes, on average.

The reason for that is because some Xeno books go a very long time between updates, while SM books are pretty regularly updated, because the other IoM and Chaos books have to be worked into the schedule. The longest gap for SM codexes was in the second half of 3rd edition, when Tau, Tyranids, Necrons, Daemon Hunter and Witch Hunter books were released. There was a four year gap in SM codexes because of that.

You can play around the the classifications to alter the results. For instance, Chaos Daemons arguably belong with Xenos, while Daemon Hunters and CSM could be included with SM. It depends on people's views of these armies.

I guess, ultimately, I don't understand why they don't explore the xenos books more because they have such compelling backstories. The marine books are all essentially deviations on the exact same backstory.

You could do so much cool stuff with the Tau and the Necrons, it baffles me why they don't do so.

Part of it comes from the idea that presenting an alien perspective is difficult to do convincingly.

If done badly, it's basically just a 'human' take on an alien perspective.

Its not difficult if effort is put in.

You say that, but look at most of the books written from an alien perspective. They end up as trash.

Gav Thorpe's "Path of the Warrior" is the only one that I've seen where it wasn't trash.

The simple fact is it's an alien perspective. It's easier to tell the human perspective when dealing with those aliens than it is to have to rely on one or two authors who can actually tell the alien perspective without it seeming like the story from a LARPer.

Yet you can still tell an Eldar/Tau/Necron story through the eyes of Imperials or others.

How many of the Xeno books are written by good, worthy authors? Not that many I wager.

There was a short story in "Let the Galaxy Burn" - Deus Mechanicus, I think it was called - about a Tech Adept and his level 1 apprentice going to what turned out to be a tomb world, and encountering what turned out to be, I think, the deceiver. I thought that was rather a cool short story, and it didn't demystify Necrons at all.

Ouze wrote:There was a short story in "Let the Galaxy Burn" - Deus Mechanicus, I think it was called - about a Tech Adept and his level 1 apprentice going to what turned out to be a tomb world, and encountering what turned out to be, I think, the deceiver. I thought that was rather a cool short story, and it didn't demystify Necrons at all.

In all fairness, this was written by Andy Chambers, and was written at a time when the Necrons didn't really have -any- background, other than, "Space Robots hellbent on destruction with gauss guns."

It actually -added- to what little we knew at the time; the Necrons went into hiding because of "the plague" and everything else that went with it.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com