Void__Dragon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Sarcasm aside, yeah, if Harlequins were actually top tier you would see a MUCH bigger swing for them. Compare current tournament results to 8th edition meta lists.

Oof, I understand disputing them being the best army in the game (they are, they have comparable or better play rates to the very best Space Marine chapters while being harder to paint, harder to play, as well as being a much more niche faction in eighth, while also having as many or more top four wins than any other faction), but I couldn't imagine being so deluded as to suggest they aren't even top tier.

Keep on coping my friend.

My mistake, I meant they aren't the best and used tier instead, assuming that I wouldn't have to get into semantic arguments when the intent behind the post is blatantly obvious. But hey my mistake, let me clarify. Harlequins are TOP TIER, but they aren't the best faction in the game and by a long shot. In fact, if you take away games Vs. The favored Space Marine chapters, Harlequins win/loss rate drops dramatically...its almost like they are built to kill SM and factions with low model count, high durability. Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that their basic troops choice has a fething melta pistol and a CC weapon that has -3AP.

For Instance, Harlequins Vs. Cult Mechanicus. 10 Wins 13 Losses (43.75% win rate). Dark Eldar: 3 wins 5 losses (37.50% win rate). Demons 4 wins 6 losses (40% win rate) Orkz 6 wins 5 Losses. (54.55% win rate) I mean, still not bad, but not OP by any stretch of the imagination. But how well do they do against the current favorite SM chapters and other high durability factions? Smurfs 14 Wins 3 losses (80.56% win rate) Salamanders 15 wins 4 losses (78.95% win rate) Iron Hands 7 wins 3 losses (70% win rate). Sisters of Battle 9 Wins 3 losses (73.08% win rate) Imperial Knights 10 wins 1 loss (90.91% win rate).

So are Orkz, Dark Eldar, Demons and Mechanicus just more OP than Smurfs, Salamanders, Iron Hands, SoB, Imperial knights or is it the fact that Harlequins are just currently the paper to the SM and other factions Rock.

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

If everyone got similar levels of marketing, production, and rules favoritism we'd whine about one army getting more marketing, production, and rules favoritism than everyone else?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

If everyone got similar levels of marketing, production, and rules favoritism we'd whine about one army getting more marketing, production, and rules favoritism than everyone else?

I mean Stormcast were getting complaints when they got some updates when they haven't had much attention for a long period of time, so I wouldn't be surprised if there would be complaints as soon as people believed Space Marines might be getting something.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

If everyone got similar levels of marketing, production, and rules favoritism we'd whine about one army getting more marketing, production, and rules favoritism than everyone else?

I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

You're not following me. I'm talking about the financial outcomes.

And no, you'll find that the more balanced things are, the less people complain. Humans have a sense of fairness.

Of course people will complain about something, but getting that over saturation and favoritism dealt with would still be a good thing.

Saying " don't change this annoying direction because people will find something else to complain about ! " Is about the oddest reason I've heard so far not to do it. With that logic no one should ever change anything bad or try and fix something because something else will just need to be fixed later why even bother ?

Well for me, I'd love for them to change that saturation and spread the love just to see what else is complained about then. Change can be good, even for complaints.

If GW spread out their marketing they'd have to release a variety of factions. That costs more than just recycling the same design of power armour.
And no single release would earn a massive amount, as it would only sell to a few people (there's what, over a dozen factions now?). Space Marines being the majority allows them to focus their efforts and releases on the majority of players. It's more efficient in terms of resources.

I hope you're not mistaking my explanation of this reason to be defending GW. It's a short sighted approach for the game, and ultimately only really benefits GW themselves.
SM players are getting tired of having to constantly open their wallets, and non-SM players are getting tired of not getting anything.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If GW spread out their marketing they'd have to release a variety of factions. That costs more than just recycling the same design of power armour.
And no single release would earn a massive amount, as it would only sell to a few people (there's what, over a dozen factions now?). Space Marines being the majority allows them to focus their efforts and releases on the majority of players. It's more efficient in terms of resources.

I hope you're not mistaking my explanation of this reason to be defending GW. It's a short sighted approach for the game, and ultimately only really benefits GW themselves.
SM players are getting tired of having to constantly open their wallets, and non-SM players are getting tired of not getting anything.

My point is that GW might be in a metastable position.

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think it's more like a dollar with Astartes than a Dime with another faction.

And if other factions got the marketing, production, and rulea favoritism that Astartes got...?

Then you lot would bitch endlessly about them as well for some reason or other.

You're not following me. I'm talking about the financial outcomes.

And no, you'll find that the more balanced things are, the less people complain. Humans have a sense of fairness.

Oh, GW? They'd make $.
Our fellow Dakkanaughts/40k players? They'll bitch about some aspect of it

? Can you know that?
I find the inherent quietening of dakkas complaints more likely outcome then the supposed further bitching because dakka.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Not Online!!! wrote:
? Can you know that?
I find the inherent quietening of dakkas complaints more likely outcome then the supposed further bitching because dakka.

Yes. As surely as I know that GW will raise prices.

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
? Can you know that?
I find the inherent quietening of dakkas complaints more likely outcome then the supposed further bitching because dakka.

Yes. As surely as I know that GW will raise prices.

I am not doubting that dakka would find something to do so, but i most certainly would assume that we would've less general demand for a result then.

ccs wrote:

Oh, GW? They'd make $.
Our fellow Dakkanaughts/40k players? They'll bitch about some aspect of it

Nope! People have a sense of fairness. The fairer the game is, the less non-sociopaths will complain about it.

My point, also, is that GW's financial model might be more lucrative with an "ensemble cast" of factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Karol, you're wrong. Plenty of people will acknowledge that their own faction has stuff that's too powerful. You're essentially saying that nobody has good arguments because you aren't competent enough to understand them, with your "how good with words" thing people are saying.

Like I mentioned, non-sociopaths have a sense of fairness and will complain about an unfair game. Sociopaths understand fairness too, but only *care* when the fairness isn't in their favor - this seems to be the viewpoint you're promoting. You come off like an absolutely cutthroat, unsportsmanlike player.

Lack of models Ill say as well has pushed me further and further into getting third party figures in order to get what I want.

People will complain if the armies aren't in at least some level of rules parity. However, they wouldn't complain of marine over saturation if it wasn't the case with model releases.

As was stated, marine players are tired of being milked, and some other factions would love to get some new kits, even if they are over expensive at this point.

While yes GW will inevitably leave plenty to complain about, they are hardly a company without fault. This matter they could correct and leave at least one less thing to complain of. For everyone involved, it should be a win win as even most marine players, myself included, would love for the other people to get hammered with some models for awhile and actually be hyped up to play their factions for a bit.

I also disagree that dakka will rant no matter what. Some individuals will, for sure, but most of dakka won't. For example, during the golden times of 8th after the castellan nerf and before SM 2.0 there was surprisingly little negativity around here, and at the very least not every other thread was eventually talking about the same two things.
If a faction doing well enough and is not regularly stepping on other people's toes, you rarely read about them in general threads at all.

So, if the game is in good state and codices get equal, decent treatment from GW, will dakka turn into a pool of positivity and be showing GW in praise? Doubtful, after all some people's fourth pillar of the hobby is complaining about how GW sucks.
We won't have every other thread derailing into a discussion on space marines though, and we won't have people (rightfully) complaining how their army doesn't work as intended/at all regularly.

"Equal". It wasn't even equal in a way just more balanced in regards to releases...
There were still some issues at that point in time but nothing that couldn't have been solved. Especially in regards to mainline GW factions...

Yeah, I was talking about a fictional scenario

I think they really hit home with how much support orks got over the course of 8th. We got our codex with a slew of awesome buggies to go along with it, then came vigilus with some decent rules and da red gobbo and a year later Saga of the Beast and Thrakka were released. And that's ignoring all the failed attempts of adding "open play only" datasheets to the game, because for some reason GW is afraid of assigning point values to ork datasheets.
Essentially they manage to released exactly as much stuff as I was willing to buy

If they tone down the flood of marines a bit to just give them twice as much as to everyone else and alternate between major/minor releases for the other factions every other year while regularly updating their rules, many, many people would be a lot happier than they are now.

I sure as hell would've been, considering that i' could've lived with a slow transtion of my R&H into GW rules teams hands if there were actually something to go by (and propper communication), but somewhere a overhead must've decided that selling separete additional books and Sm releases with high proift margines because Printing in china is dirt cheap, and forcing marine players to buy 2 separate books to play their favourite chapter takes precedent.

To be fair, if they slapped all the supplements into a single book, it would be larger than the BRB and not cost a lot less than the two books do now - and that is already assuming large parts of the supplements are redundant and can be removed when you join them.

A combined supplement book would only be bigger than the BRB because they decided to stretch each individual supplement so thin, trying to justify its existence.

We really don't need an entire lore page about the Imperial Fists 7th Company, nor does each subfaction require 20 stratagems and their own psychic discipline. If they were all in one book (or heaven forbid, the smaller Marine subfactions are treated like every other subfaction in the game) you'd see a lot more restraint. 1 Stratagem, 1 Relic, 1 WLT and maybe 1 Psychic Power. That's all they need and deserve.

Given the choice people would definitely prefer buying a second book over losing all that content related to their army.

Just go ask R&H players how much they enjoy their rules finally being free.

 Bosskelot wrote:
A combined supplement book would only be bigger than the BRB because they decided to stretch each individual supplement so thin, trying to justify its existence.

We really don't need an entire lore page about the Imperial Fists 7th Company, nor does each subfaction require 20 stratagems and their own psychic discipline. If they were all in one book (or heaven forbid, the smaller Marine subfactions are treated like every other subfaction in the game) you'd see a lot more restraint. 1 Stratagem, 1 Relic, 1 WLT and maybe 1 Psychic Power. That's all they need and deserve.

Need? Probably.

Deserve? Not according to GW.

The entire primaris line wasn't needed or deserved, and yet GW launched it and it sold quite well.

40k is mostly about SM and with the sheer amount of SM relaeses it makes sense that their chapters don't count as standard subfactions, and they are much more developed instead. Of course it's not "fair" but it's how GW designed the 40k universe.

Hecaton 794465 11011672 wrote:
]

Karol, you're wrong. Plenty of people will acknowledge that their own faction has stuff that's too powerful. You're essentially saying that nobody has good arguments because you aren't competent enough to understand them, with your "how good with words" thing people are saying.

Like I mentioned, non-sociopaths have a sense of fairness and will complain about an unfair game. Sociopaths understand fairness too, but only *care* when the fairness isn't in their favor - this seems to be the viewpoint you're promoting. You come off like an absolutely cutthroat, unsportsmanlike player.

Maybe people that can play multiple armies or people that stay and play their armies anyway, and this ends just talk.

I don't really care if someone says their faction is too powerful or not enough powerful. I care about stuff that happens in the real world. like an people getting bullied for playing the 2.0 IH by eldar or tau players, after almost 3 years playing bad IH all 8th.

ah and as "fariness" goes it is not a sociopath or non sociopath thing it is a cultural thing. Just ask someone from outside your culture, what their local views on what is considered fair and you would be suprised.

We have a so called kali, character in a book not indian godess, law. Unfair and bad thing is when someone takes Kalis cows. Good and fair is when Kali takes someones cows. To give you an example. And I ain't promoting anything, I am just saying how w40k looks like outside of places like UK or US. And oddly enough considering how posted lists look like and how armies being sold on ebay and the like look like, the as you called it "sociopath" way of playing seems not exclusive to my area of the world.


And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

40K being about Marines is ok. It's the reality of what sells.

But the supplement approach is just dumb and clumsy.

It'd be much better if they'd spin off the various Marine chapters like Blood Angels, White Scars, etc.. into individual Codexes. Sure, you have to reprint a few pages for Intercessors, etc.. in each, but a) customers don't have to buy two books, b) the armies can be balanced far better without a "generic" set of strats, WL traits, etc.. to consider that might be useless to one chapter and broken in another, and you could even adjust point values to reflect the relative strength of units in various chapters. Also, you wouldn't have to stuff all the Marines into a 12-month release window and could sprinkle them more regularly across the entire lifespan of an edition along with the other armies.

They spectacularly failed with that approach in 8th.

I agree with Sunny Side Up, SM chapters would be much better if they were functioning standalone armies. Not like they were in 8th or previous edition though with tons of shared stuff. Give them 40ish datasheets and that's it.

I mean SW could not have a single primaris model for example, bikes of all kinds only for DA or Whitescars, no dreads for Whitescars or Imperial Fists, no flyers for Iron Hands etc...

Make chapters real standalone armies with 70ish% of unique stuff and just a few identical model shared between the chapters. Each chapter with its own subfactions and for example Space Wolves sagas could have been the equivalent of orks clans, necrons dynasties, etc...

Instead of a single SM codex and 7-8 supplements I'd definitely prefer 7-8 codexes, with the removal of the vanilla book. A few minor chapters would go but amen.

I understand that this way new SM releases would have less market as only a fraction of SM players could play them, but overall the game would be much healtier and I think that if that really was the case people would buy more stuff anyway as a result.

Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Sunny Side Up wrote:
40K being about Marines is ok. It's the reality of what sells.

But the supplement approach is just dumb and clumsy.

It'd be much better if they'd spin off the various Marine chapters like Blood Angels, White Scars, etc.. into individual Codexes. Sure, you have to reprint a few pages for Intercessors, etc.. in each, but a) customers don't have to buy two books, b) the armies can be balanced far better without a "generic" set of strats, WL traits, etc.. to consider that might be useless to one chapter and broken in another, and you could even adjust point values to reflect the relative strength of units in various chapters. Also, you wouldn't have to stuff all the Marines into a 12-month release window and could sprinkle them more regularly across the entire lifespan of an edition along with the other armies.

well the thing is they don't want to sell a BA player just 2000pts of models, and 2 books. they want to sell him more points, and a lot more books. So now the BA player may not get any special new units, unless we count the primaris DC as special, but in 12-16 months time, they may come out a book which will have BA specific blade guard, and this could be done for any marine subfaction. Special scouting or sniper primaris for RG, special eradictors for salamanders etc. Each such unit could warrent a page or two of rules, which means another 25$ a player would have to buy to keep up with the game, or even to have other stuff to play with. With anomalies like tau or eldar aside, most armies in 8th didn't stay good or fun to play for more then a year, or at least not without big restructurisation of what someone would play with, and more often then not the new playing would require at least a new codex.


In that regard 9th isn't much different then 8th. There terrain rules are different and core rules are different to entice people to buy and play with a bit different armies then in 8th ed. And those are good things. But the rest more or less stays the same. There are still horrible armies with rules not fitted for the editions, where people are going to get enjoy such rule sets for a year+ of edition. There is going to be power creep and there is going to be armies+, with rules much better then the rest. One just hast to be lucky to have onesown army fall in to the good armies bucket and not the other ones, and all is good.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

I feel like that is where we are heading eventually, and some of the profile splitting is just infuriating. There's like 3-4 datasheet for Primaris captains ALONE, most of which are just armor or weapon swaps.

If GW abandons their "no model, no rules" mentality, at least to a limited extent then you could fold almost half the codex datasheet together.

Karol wrote:
Maybe people that can play multiple armies or people that stay and play their armies anyway, and this ends just talk.

Maybe. But actually no.

Karol wrote:
I don't really care if someone says their faction is too powerful or not enough powerful. I care about stuff that happens in the real world. like an people getting bullied for playing the 2.0 IH by eldar or tau players, after almost 3 years playing bad IH all 8th/

ah and as "fariness" goes it is not a sociopath or non sociopath thing it is a cultural thing. Just ask someone from outside your culture, what their local views on what is considered fair and you would be suprised.

I guarantee that supposed bullying didn't happen. You're like a bad stereotype of everything non-Poles say about Poles in the wargaming community. I'm 1/4 Polish and have Polish family, all of them have a sense of basic decency and fairness that you seem to lack. Ditto for all of my non-related Polish-born friends. It's not a "cultural thing." You are just wrong.

Karol wrote:
We have a so called kali, character in a book not indian godess, law. Unfair and bad thing is when someone takes Kalis cows. Good and fair is when Kali takes someones cows. To give you an example. And I ain't promoting anything, I am just saying how w40k looks like outside of places like UK or US. And oddly enough considering how posted lists look like and how armies being sold on ebay and the like look like, the as you called it "sociopath" way of playing seems not exclusive to my area of the world.

No, Polish or Indian people are not as you describe. Either you're a racist troll pretending to be a Pole, or you're just uniquely morally deficient.

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

Not actually true, but it's really common for people who have no sense of sportsmanship, in life or in games, to think that everyone else is cheating so they have to to stay ahead. So I'll repeat, you're either a racist playing an Uncle Ruckus-like role adapted for Pole, or are uniquely deficient in your morality. Saying that Poles have no sense of right and wrong is racist, even if you happen to be Polish yourself (which I now doubt).

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 794465 11011672 wrote:
]

Karol, you're wrong. Plenty of people will acknowledge that their own faction has stuff that's too powerful. You're essentially saying that nobody has good arguments because you aren't competent enough to understand them, with your "how good with words" thing people are saying.

Like I mentioned, non-sociopaths have a sense of fairness and will complain about an unfair game. Sociopaths understand fairness too, but only *care* when the fairness isn't in their favor - this seems to be the viewpoint you're promoting. You come off like an absolutely cutthroat, unsportsmanlike player.

Maybe people that can play multiple armies or people that stay and play their armies anyway, and this ends just talk.

I don't really care if someone says their faction is too powerful or not enough powerful. I care about stuff that happens in the real world. like an people getting bullied for playing the 2.0 IH by eldar or tau players, after almost 3 years playing bad IH all 8th.

ah and as "fariness" goes it is not a sociopath or non sociopath thing it is a cultural thing. Just ask someone from outside your culture, what their local views on what is considered fair and you would be suprised.

We have a so called kali, character in a book not indian godess, law. Unfair and bad thing is when someone takes Kalis cows. Good and fair is when Kali takes someones cows. To give you an example. And I ain't promoting anything, I am just saying how w40k looks like outside of places like UK or US. And oddly enough considering how posted lists look like and how armies being sold on ebay and the like look like, the as you called it "sociopath" way of playing seems not exclusive to my area of the world.


And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

Karol, I'll say this with much respect involved, but I think they mean that fairness, as a base concept of equality can be pretty much agreed on by everyone, universally. Do some places stretch and twist and view it different ? Yes they can and do, personal bias on fairness is a thing. However, the base ideal of fairness and equality given across the board I hardly think is a matter for debate as we can all agree on what that means. The fact a local bias colors what that means to some is more a societal issue than a matter for marine over saturation and why it is good or not good or should be allowed or not or why an over performing faction should be punished for sins of editions past.

That having been said, it's just the same thing as sportsmanship. The ideal of that is you fight, play, work hard, hard as you can to win, but you do it clean and if you close, GG, show respect as you all did your best. That is the ideal, what you are calling sportsmanship is far from the ideal and more akin to winning at all cost which while some sports players may follow that in all areas isn't in fact the spirit of " sportsmanship " As is being discussed. Yet again the fact that it's so lost to some is more a worry of society and mentality these days then some real expression of what that means. It just feeds the very destructive " you are first or last " mentality which I don't personally feel is what anyone should be aiming for.

Pushing to win, doing your best, always the path forward, doing it at the cost of cheating but not being caught or fishing for unfair advantage and you've already lost. Really off topic, but if you want it to make sense to marines, right now they are just going over the top in capability of choices while others are languishing for a long time without any much needed boosts while they've had countless ones in the same time frame. Making them feel, at least for some, a good deal unfair and not very sporting. Much like how you felt for years on years on years getting your GK forces ignored or in fact nerfed over and over didn't feel very fair did it ?

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

'Sportsmanship means WAAC and cheating without getting caught because that's how I am taught to play sports IRL' is certainly a hot take. Not even a particularly valid one, given that that sort of behavior is generally considered unsportsmanlike, and therefore a bad thing you are not supposed to do, when it is uncovered.

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

'Sportsmanship means WAAC and cheating without getting caught because that's how I am taught to play sports IRL' is certainly a hot take. Not even a particularly valid one, given that that sort of behavior is generally considered unsportsmanlike, and therefore a bad thing you are not supposed to do, when it is uncovered.

Its really not suprising that they think that way. They 100% have been influenced by the gakky community they grew up in and now they think this behavior is the norm, with no capacity to see other people's point of view.

bingo, they're just a product of their environment. a really, really fethed up environment.

 Carnage43 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

I feel like that is where we are heading eventually, and some of the profile splitting is just infuriating. There's like 3-4 datasheet for Primaris captains ALONE, most of which are just armor or weapon swaps.

If GW abandons their "no model, no rules" mentality, at least to a limited extent then you could fold almost half the codex datasheet together.

"Eventually" can mean anything with GW. We should've been demanding this since the 8th 2.0 Codex.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Agree with Blackie here.

I was very, very nervous when I found out that BA/DA/SW/DW were losing bespoke status, because I really thought they'd lose content and units. I can only speak for DW, but we lost nothing; we actually gained. I probably won't play any other SM factions, but I do have the BA Terminators from Space Hulk kickin around, and I do like Mephiston. Just those models could add up to a 25 PL Crusade. Let me think about this: would I rather buy Mephiston and a $35 book to make that happen, or Mephiston and a $60 book.

And sure, the cynical among you would say, "See, it worked- you're talking about buying a book and a model that you wouldn't have under the old bespoke system."

Guilty as charged. But those terminators have been sitting in a box collecting dust since the Space Hulk release- I only bothered painting the Genestealers, because I play them in 40k. Those BA are like bonus models- themoney on them was already spent... and was in the process of being wasted and unappreciated. That full priced bespoke dex and the expectation that if I bought into BA, I'd probably need at least 1500 points to really use it were always a barrier.

But now, small games are smokin' and Crusade makes them even cooler. $85 to put another cool little Crusade army in play is NOT a barrier to entry. The cost of the stuff I already own doesn't factor into the equation, because I already own it; it was purchased for entirely different armies (SM dex was purchased for DW, Space Hulk because of the Genestealers); it continues to serve those armies as well as it ever did, but now the stuff I already own serves additional purposes as well.

Edit: Argument fell apart on second reading. Trimmed the broken parts- what's left should work. Sorry to anyone who responded to the original rant. Think I caught it fast, but ya never know.

Well that kind of works out for you, but only if people actually play small games like that near you, here they don't really when we can play matches.

Also that doesn't make it cost effective if say you only played say space wolves or Deathwatch and now need two books just for that, it just kinda sucks. If we're all honest we know why they did it this way, to have most marine players buy an extra book or tempt mono faction marine players to dabble in others by making them have to buy the vanilla codex. Maybe to spur those uses of extra models to grow into new found larger armies in time.

It's not hard to see why they want to do that but it does kind of suck to some. I can see where it would be nicer to some others. However it is a feel bad to lets say me, who has to add another book to my collection whenever I want to use my other used to be stand alone chapters.

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

ccs wrote:

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

Choose a time period.

Look at the number of releases for Marines as compared to the number of releases for another faction.

I did a comparison a few months ago. I think I started with 7th edition and went up to when I made the post.
Universal Marine releases (so nothing subfaction specific-only stuff that general Loyalist Marines can use) was just barely under the total number of Chaos releases. Not Chaos Space Marines-all of Chaos.

An entire superfaction, arguably the second largest after Imperium, got only slightly more releases than generic Marines. If you add in subfaction stuff, like Bobby G, Wulfen, or anything like that... They'd have more.

Other factions get releases. But not as consistently, as often, or as much as Marines.

ccs wrote:

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

Throughout 8th edition and into 9th, space marines have gotten approximately the same number of releases as literally everyone else combined.

Even if you consider every previously-existing codex that is now under "the marine umbrella" then marines are only 1/4 of the factions in the game. They should not be receiving 1/2 of the kits. You can spin that however you like - call it a new product line, replacing the DESPERATLELY outdated fething 99% recent plastic space marine range, despite the fact that GW is releasing it as a bunch of all new units, but they're gobbling up a full 1/2 of the release slots like its the breakdown in WAP while factions like nids have gotten diddly since 2014.

feth, the other day i looked up when an Eldar unit I thought was pretty recent got released because I looked at the sprue and it was super dated looking, and Eldar have gotten a grand total of 12 new kits since the beginning of fifth edition. 12 years, 12 kits babyyyyyyy.

Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

you can make the same argument with Chaos as a superfaction beeing closeish to marines yet the superfactions get's less on average...
But hey, let's missrepresent the arguments made.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Funny you should mention that Sunny - Necrons are selling like hotcakes, and they are currently one of the most-played factions in competitve 40k. It's almost like if you update a faction's models and give them exciting new units to flesh out their roster, as well as good rules, they get played a lot lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of people on this thread are making the argument that GW aren't losing anything by spamming marine releases, and are going great guns in sales and profits. I'd say the second part of that is true while the first is false.

The irony of that is the argument is embedded in a 22-page complaint thread about how GW is losing good faith and buy-in from its loyal customers. Now, in an economy entirely predicated on customer emotional buy-in and loyalty, I would argue that this erosion of goodwill is an extremely serious problem for GW. They read the forums, they field literally thousands of salty complaints about this topic just on their Facebook page. Deep within GW HQ there are serious arguments being had about release direction and fanbase disenchantment - I would bet my last pound on it.

When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

 grouchoben wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Funny you should mention that Sunny - Necrons are selling like hotcakes, and they are currently one of the most-played factions in competitve 40k. It's almost like if you update a faction's models and give them exciting new units to flesh out their roster, as well as good rules, they get played a lot lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of people on this thread are making the argument that GW aren't losing anything by spamming marine releases, and are going great guns in sales and profits. I'd say the second part of that is true while the first is false.

The irony of that is the argument is embedded in a 22-page complaint thread about how GW is losing good faith and buy-in from its loyal customers. Now, in an economy entirely predicated on customer emotional buy-in and loyalty, I would argue that this erosion of goodwill is an extremely serious problem for GW. They read the forums, they field literally thousands of salty complaints about this topic just on their Facebook page. Deep within GW HQ there are serious arguments being had about release direction and fanbase disenchantment - I would bet my last pound on it.

Sitting on my desk right now are 10 Dire Avenger models I created by finding 1 good sculpt someone had published online as an STL, downloading a free 3d animation program, watching a couple how-to videos for it during lunch at work, and then coming home and rigging up that one sculpt to a posing skeleton so I could make a dozen-odd poses that would be utterly impossible with the ancient 4th edition-era GW kit with its fething U-arms and horse riding pose legs.

Good amount more effort, though. If someone hadn't had a dozen years to craft a better-quality replacement, and if the price point of the GW competition wasn't literally 20x what I paid for these 10 dudes, ehhhh they might have stood a competitive chance. But they're still just relying on flogging some piece of artwork that was done 12 years ago by some fething artist who got paid for probably 10 hours of work back in 2008 and now probably doesn't even work for the fething company anymore.

If marine players still had the fething 3rd edition tactical squad box with the 2 special weapons and the 10 identical legs and the U-arms and the stupid pouches and gak that didn't ever sit flat on the models and GW had split the box in half so you had to buy 5 models for 35 bucks, of COURSE sales for marines would be in the toilet. You're expected to buy trash minis old enough to vote when you can buy vastly better looking 3rd party alternatives that convey the same concept objectively better for half the price.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

You know what ,you're 100% right. And naturally, this should extend to the full range, meaning there is no reason for rules parity too. Surely if Marines sell more, GW would rationally cater to marine playerbase by giving them better rules? It incentivizes sales after all.

I mean isn't that what they have been doing recently?

(That does assume GW's designers are competent enough to make something overpowered on purpose. Evidence suggests they are not.)

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

Really? I thought people were generally pretty positive about their visual design?

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

I've heard various opinions on Bonereapers but nobody just outright hating them. I'm calling BS on this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

I've heard various opinions on Bonereapers but nobody just outright hating them. I'm calling BS on this.

Ossiarchs had a few issues with their marketing

1) They appeared out of nothing. There was no hint or build up really to their release. YES GW teased some things like the ghost in Shadspire, but no one expected Ossiarchs. Espeically when GW had been teasing other forces for much longer (Eg the two Aelf factions of which we have Lumineth and not yet Malarion's forces). So for some the reaction was cold because they were a surprise release

2) They weren't Tomb Kings - yeah like it or not whilst they are an undead construct faction they are not Tomb Kings. Some people wanted TK in spirit and design and didn't get that; so they were a bit jaded.

3) Their designs are very different to a lto of other races/factions/designs. They are actually really creative and I love them (heck I sold a bunch of stuff just to buy into them on launch day); but some people didn't like the direction. That's fair and the longer it was before their release the more you heard from the dissent group than the love group - its the net people complain a bit more.


At launch they were somewhat broken, if part because they are a very easy faction to win with if your opponents only tactic is to charge head long at you and get into a direct fight. They did have one very broken subfaction with a +1 save to all models, but that's been resolved now. They are also slower in general and have fewer units on the table so they can be countered; heck even in the early GW promotional videos the Ossiarchs were often losing turns 2 and 3 of the game on objectives and its only with a good plan that comes together that they could win in the latter turns

Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

I think they'll come into their own once they get a few more medium to big kits released where you really get to see them shine for creative construct monsters.

 Overread wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

I think they'll come into their own once they get a few more medium to big kits released where you really get to see them shine for creative construct monsters.

How often do Sigmar armies get kits after their initial release? Off the top of my head I can't remember any other than the Stormcast.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

I think they'll come into their own once they get a few more medium to big kits released where you really get to see them shine for creative construct monsters.

How often do Sigmar armies get kits after their initial release? Off the top of my head I can't remember any other than the Stormcast.

Slaanesh is getting a second wave, but arguably that's just bringing them up to line with the other God-armies in that they had no Mortal units who weren't Hellstriders.

There's been Endless Spells, the odd terrain piece and occasional one-shot Hero but that's about it for anything non-Sigmarine.

Lumineth getting a second wave's probably inevitable since Tyrion is such an important character with half of their lands tied to him, so there's that.

And you know Tyrion's going into a second Lumineth wave instead of a whole new dragon-elves army?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And you know Tyrion's going into a second Lumineth wave instead of a whole new dragon-elves army?

He's literally mentioned in the army book as 2nd part of LRL forces. Technically, all non-elemental units are Tyrion's elves.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

I think they'll come into their own once they get a few more medium to big kits released where you really get to see them shine for creative construct monsters.

How often do Sigmar armies get kits after their initial release? Off the top of my head I can't remember any other than the Stormcast.

Slaanesh is about to get some new kits and Blades of Khorne got new kits during the release of Wrath and Rapture along with Slaanesh. Then there is a single model for Daughters of Khaine that just came out recently in a box and I expect a few kits as addons to existing armies if the Broken Realms series imitates Psychic Awakening.

Ultimately I think AoS has been catching up the entire 2.0 edition and providing relevant factions - both existing and lorewise - with tomes and groundwork for their armies. The real question is what will happen now with Broken Realms and the inevitable 3.0 that will probably come out next year.

GW has also technically been doing stealth kits for AoS through both Warcry and Warhammer Underworlds. Some of the Underworld kits are surprisingly useful as alternatives to heroes. The DoK kit provided a Hag Queen, the FEC gang brought us a Crypt Ghast Courtier, and so on and so on.

So new kits after tome release is not unheard of.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.

I think they'll come into their own once they get a few more medium to big kits released where you really get to see them shine for creative construct monsters.

How often do Sigmar armies get kits after their initial release? Off the top of my head I can't remember any other than the Stormcast.

Age of Sigmar has had a very blighted history.

At launch its important to remember AoS was NOT a wargame. It was a boutique model line. It was made with four grand alliances and no formal rules system. The idea being that GW could create lots of smaller armies and add to them or remove them and it wouldn't harm players because they'd not be collecting an army and if they were they'd be in one of the four grand alliances. With no point costs, no unit limits, no formal rules etc.... it was basically just buying cool models. It explains why they dropped armies so quickly and also why they shattered some into fragmented forces. The idea was to cut anything that wasn't selling rather htan GW's typical approach to revamp and invest and get them selling etc...

It was a disaster.

GW threw out a few 0.5 rules and then some 1.0 - battletomes which were basically nothing but warscroll cards (unit stats).

Then GW got their act together and changed AoS back to wargame. The launch of 2.0 (well just before) started this process and they spent the whole of 2.0 updating things. We lost some forces, we gained some others and GW sorted everything out. It was honestly a huge amount of releases ,but spread over the whole game. One or two armies got a lions share of attention - Stormcast, Nighthaunt, Gloomsptie - many got a token model or two and some got nothing.

Recently we are seeing GW going back to some armies, Slaanesh is getting a second wave, Daughters of Khaine have got a few more models from Underworld and Warcry. Second waves DO and will happen, its just the scale of the thing when it comes to AoS so not every army can get attention at the same time. But it is happening and one bonus is that the small armies do work in AoS. Heck some of them have been the most powerful at various stages of the balance cycle.

 Overread wrote:

At launch its important to remember AoS was NOT a wargame. It was a boutique model line. It was made with four grand alliances and no formal rules system.

This idea that there was no formal rules is untrue. It had rules for movement, charges, shooting, melee, morale, spell casting, etc. What it completely lacked were rules on army building.

Rules for army building or in this case lack there of is a pretty large and glaring flaw, so large and glaring even its staunchest supporters stepped away and GW had to reverse the course on the good ship stupid and actually make rules for it so you could reasonably set up and play a game.

At the end of the day don't lose sight of the fact that is how disconnected the company is from their own game they didn't, for around about a year, think that was an issue and it was instead the players who were wrong and didn't appreciate the greatness of AoS with take however much you want approach.

Yes, I'm well aware of that glaring flaw in AoS 1.0 I'm one of those that walked away. And then back with 2.0
Sure, a few of us with existing WHFB armies gave it a shot using 8e army construction rules. But that completely locked out using anything new & made it harder for new players to join. And our Tomb King & Bretonian players just spent the next year sulking in rage. So we just played a few games of 8e or whatever & more WWII....

That flaw completely killed the game at the local shop though. So much so that the shop simply stopped carrying AoS stuff & gave it's shelf space to X-Wing or something.
With 2.0 & army building rules back things improved in 2019 when a few of us started a Path to Glory league. And then a pandemic came along....

yeah my point with that was just people need to realize this company can make huge mistakes, so perhaps not think they actually really know what they are doing at all times with rules or what the people want.

Sorry to hear about the lack of traction due to pandemic. I will say WHFB was like my favorite side game, I didn't play it much but it was always a lot of fun when I did. I was very sad to see it die and AoS never got to me. Felt too much like old timey 40k in look with how it was played and I played Fantasy for the block battle formations.

ccs wrote:

 Overread wrote:

At launch its important to remember AoS was NOT a wargame. It was a boutique model line. It was made with four grand alliances and no formal rules system.

This idea that there was no formal rules is untrue. It had rules for movement, charges, shooting, melee, morale, spell casting, etc. What it completely lacked were rules on army building.

No it lacked a formal rules system at launch.

What it did have was the "AoS Unhinged" rules system. Ergo a joke system* with "get +1 attack if you've got a beard whilst playing as dwarves" type rules. Jovial, childish and when coupled to a lack of any points and a lack of any formal army building system of any kind; it was a lack of any proper rules. It wasn't until months later that GW pushed out 1.0 and even that was clearly a panic plaster until they got around to 2.0 where it basically restarted the whole process.


There's an interview or two out there which reveals more of how it all came around - it seems lower staff pandering to a "middle" kinda manager resulted in a mess. Apparently they even had formal rules and everything in design for launch, but dropped it to support management objectives/desires etc...




* I should note that I have no problem with fun/jovial rules systems. The issue with AoS (as well as everything else) was that they didn't just give us silly rules, but they took the formal rules away and, at launch, gave no impression that they'd ever give them back.

Hey I grew a beard out for that dwarf rule !! I was so immersed I even drank much ale and a strong helmet, lived under a mountain and dug for gold. Those rules were amazing.

I remember being pretty open to the idea of AoS as a looser, skirmish style version of the game with simple rules, where you could grab a bunch of models and throw down for a game. I was pretty into that idea, because the nature of 8th ed had been pretty off putting to me (needing these huge blocks of infantry that would probably just be blasted off the board before they got to do anything anyway).

But those rules were very disappointing, and clearly had not had much thought put into them. Stuff like Double Turn continued that trend in my opinion, and I have been put off getting into AoS by the current rules as well, because there are some pretty glaring problems in my view.

Luckily Age of Fantasy exists which actually delivers the kind of experience I wanted.

ccs wrote:

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

I have never said the non marines get no support. So I am not sure how proceed on with this. You have already butchered my post's points and questions. I am trying to type this in as non-verbally salty way possible by the way. I am neither angered by your post or wish you any ill will.

You can say that its a new line stretched over three years. And that may be so. But look at HOW MUCH has been introduced in those three years. It is on the amount of two to three other factions combined. There is a problem. Most people see it. I do as well.

I really don't get where the problem is suppose to be. GW only make large runs for model lines that are either being relaunched, like DG or SoB, or for stuff they know that will sell 100% of time, which is more or less marines for them.

Every other thing in AoS and w40k gets mini releases at best with maybe 2-3 units, and a bunch of characters or support units. And that is even true for new factions in AoS , why should GW risk losing money on production and storage of something they may not sell, when marines always sell. That is like asking a food company, why isn't it making healthy food.

Expressing frustration with a situation does not mean you don't understand why it is happening.

Karol wrote:
I really don't get where the problem is suppose to be. GW only make large runs for model lines that are either being relaunched, like DG or SoB, or for stuff they know that will sell 100% of time, which is more or less marines for them.

Every other thing in AoS and w40k gets mini releases at best with maybe 2-3 units, and a bunch of characters or support units. And that is even true for new factions in AoS , why should GW risk losing money on production and storage of something they may not sell, when marines always sell. That is like asking a food company, why isn't it making healthy food.

How do you know updated Eldar/Orks/whatever won't sell? GW barely makes any. Are the armies less popular because there's inherently something worse about them, or because the design team doesn't like them and they're stuck with 15-20 year old minis?

Orks are already one of the most expensive armies to build, upgrading their perfectly fine plastic kits to more expensive kits with less models will for sure not spark any joy in ork players.

Yeah, a lot of the ranges are pretty complete. I don't see much of a case for upgrades really. There are loads of awesome kits even just in the Xenos lines.

There was no guarantee GSC were going to sell, yet they still did them.

How well do you think GW expected random Gloomspite Gitz characters or the Sneaky Snufflers to sell? Yet they still did them.

This idea that certain models or ranges are immune to updates because they aren't Marines is a ridiculous and stupid argument to make. If that was the case there literally would be no other product GW would sell.

I'm sure their Specialist Games and LOTR sell less than some 40k armies, but they still produce and make profit off of them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Orks are already one of the most expensive armies to build, upgrading their perfectly fine plastic kits to more expensive kits with less models will for sure not spark any joy in ork players.

New model lines exist to make investors happy and not players. If an ork players has to buy 5 man boxs to make their army valid, those that want to play orks will do it often enough for GW to be happy.

How do you know updated Eldar/Orks/whatever won't sell? GW barely makes any. Are the armies less popular because there's inherently something worse about them, or because the design team doesn't like them and they're stuck with 15-20 year old minis?

It isn't about what I know. It is about what GW knows. They have all the data they need. They know much it costs them to make new xeno models, produce them and then how many they will sell of them, if they make a specific amount of them. If GW was sure that by investing and making a new model line, the cost will generate an good , from GW stand point, sells they would do it. But it is risky bussiness, so they don't do it often. Ad mecha and DG got full reworks in 8th, as far as armies go. But everyone else just got HQs here and there, and everything else was double dipping. Either by being demons an being sold for w40k and AoS, or by being primaris and sold to every space marine player.

The work time on a new marine model and line, costs at best the same if we want to weight it in favour of xeno model lines, and the cost to make them is the same as for primaris marines. But unlike with primaris GW can't be sure, and I would even risk that they can estimate the size, of other model lines sells. There for making big lines of models for xeno factions gives GW no extra money, can lose them money if they don't sell, while same time spend on primaris does not bring any such risk. Why would they ever want to risk acting in anyway different? It is like trying out a new kid in front of ministry inspectors, risking the whole school budget on this new kid , maybe, doing okey. You wouldn't do that, you would show off the school stars, the event winners, those that can go professional and who bring in sponsors etc.

Da Boss wrote:Expressing frustration with a situation does not mean you don't understand why it is happening.

Wait, non-marine players particularly Eldar players are frustrated in their lack model updates/new releases? Is this just on DakkaDakka, or could I find people commenting the same on the wider internet? Next you're going to tell me more than a handful of players worldwide don't absolutely love everything about space marines and more so Primaris. /sarcasm

Ribbing aside, I think a lot of people share that frustration, but there isn't a lot that can be done about it. Games Workshop is going to release what they are going to release. Like I said many pages ago, blaming Primaris model releases is as productive as blaming Necormunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Blackstone Fortress, etc. I think it is apparent that GW wants to sure-fire sellers and brand-new elements over re-treads or expansions to existing factions. The big exception being Chaos Space Marines. Which I am at a loss how they happened given the moves GW has made. Even the Sisters of Battle made more sense given the extreme age of the line and the constant chatter about it online. If you were to ask me a few years ago, I would have probably even said Eldar would have seen a refresh before CSM as they always seemed to be a little more, or just as, popular and had way less plastic kits.

Jidmah wrote:Orks are already one of the most expensive armies to build, upgrading their perfectly fine plastic kits to more expensive kits with less models will for sure not spark any joy in ork players.

Every time I see someone say that they want updated Ork models I am left very confused. I am all on board on getting rid of the finecast stuff and Orks need to get back a lot of the HQ units for certain. I can go even further and say if GW doesn't want to make Nobs Troop choices, I think releasing a 'Ardboys kit as a more elite Troops option could go a long way. But I think more than any other model, Ork Boyz, Burnas and Lootas hold up fantastically.

I have been a big fan of GW's more modern designs as all my 40k armies now composed model kits less than 6 years old. Every now and again, I get tempted to expand on my extra large Ork kill team. All it would take is a couple of Start Collecting boxes, and I think I would have about a 1000pts. As much as I like the newer designs, I can't see GW improving Orks to compensate for the increase in price. Price is already the biggest issue to me creating an Ork army. Newer re-do's of the older stuff would completely close that door.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Orks are already one of the most expensive armies to build, upgrading their perfectly fine plastic kits to more expensive kits with less models will for sure not spark any joy in ork players.

Every time I see someone say that they want updated Ork models I am left very confused. I am all on board on getting rid of the finecast stuff and Orks need to get back a lot of the HQ units for certain. I can go even further and say if GW doesn't want to make Nobs Troop choices, I think releasing a 'Ardboys kit as a more elite Troops option could go a long way. But I think more than any other model, Ork Boyz, Burnas and Lootas hold up fantastically.

I have been a big fan of GW's more modern designs as all my 40k armies now composed model kits less than 6 years old. Every now and again, I get tempted to expand on my extra large Ork kill team. All it would take is a couple of Start Collecting boxes, and I think I would have about a 1000pts. As much as I like the newer designs, I can't see GW improving Orks to compensate for the increase in price. Price is already the biggest issue to me creating an Ork army. Newer re-do's of the older stuff would completely close that door.

Agree. I know almost all ork players on this board though, and the vast majority of people crying for new models are either collectors who won't buy more than a box or two anyways, or people who don't play orks at all.

Orks only need stuff here and there. Eldar, & everything finecast needs to be plasticized.

that should fill up the release schedule for a while, especially given GW's inability to NOT release astartes.

Karol wrote:
New model lines exist to make investors happy and not players. If an ork players has to buy 5 man boxs to make their army valid, those that want to play orks will do it often enough for GW to be happy.

Or, they'll move on to other minis games or leave the hobby.

Karol wrote:

It isn't about what I know. It is about what GW knows. They have all the data they need. They know much it costs them to make new xeno models, produce them and then how many they will sell of them, if they make a specific amount of them. If GW was sure that by investing and making a new model line, the cost will generate an good , from GW stand point, sells they would do it. But it is risky bussiness, so they don't do it often. Ad mecha and DG got full reworks in 8th, as far as armies go. But everyone else just got HQs here and there, and everything else was double dipping. Either by being demons an being sold for w40k and AoS, or by being primaris and sold to every space marine player.

The work time on a new marine model and line, costs at best the same if we want to weight it in favour of xeno model lines, and the cost to make them is the same as for primaris marines. But unlike with primaris GW can't be sure, and I would even risk that they can estimate the size, of other model lines sells. There for making big lines of models for xeno factions gives GW no extra money, can lose them money if they don't sell, while same time spend on primaris does not bring any such risk. Why would they ever want to risk acting in anyway different? It is like trying out a new kid in front of ministry inspectors, risking the whole school budget on this new kid , maybe, doing okey. You wouldn't do that, you would show off the school stars, the event winners, those that can go professional and who bring in sponsors etc.

They don't have all the data they need, considering they were surprised at the demand for an SoB model line. Corporations make mistakes all the time. The only way your statement makes sense is if you assume that GW is all-knowing; they're not.

Table wrote:


I have never said the non marines get no support. So I am not sure how proceed on with this. You have already butchered my post's points and questions. I am trying to type this in as non-verbally salty way possible by the way. I am neither angered by your post or wish you any ill will.

You can say that its a new line stretched over three years. And that may be so. But look at HOW MUCH has been introduced in those three years. It is on the amount of two to three other factions combined. There is a problem. Most people see it. I do as well.

Yup, ccs seems to not understand that the amount of product space that Primaris has taken up has been unprecedented.

They don't have all the data they need, considering they were surprised at the demand for an SoB model line. Corporations make mistakes all the time. The only way your statement makes sense is if you assume that GW is all-knowing; they're not.

But they weren't suprised by anything. They had a full metal SoB line, that went full finecast, cost a lot and was not selling well. They made research and found out that people want plastic SoB, so they made them. And they sold well.

If instead of SoB, in the polls the same number of people was asking for Eldar models, then GW would have made eldar.

Or, they'll move on to other minis games or leave the hobby.

I don't think GW cares much about what happens to people after they buy an army and books from them. I mean besides the fact that, if GW could achive it somehow, they would want their models to bio degrade after 4-5 year, so that no secondary market exists.

Karol wrote:

They don't have all the data they need, considering they were surprised at the demand for an SoB model line. Corporations make mistakes all the time. The only way your statement makes sense is if you assume that GW is all-knowing; they're not.

But they weren't suprised by anything. They had a full metal SoB line, that went full finecast, cost a lot and was not selling well. They made research and found out that people want plastic SoB, so they made them. And they sold well.

If instead of SoB, in the polls the same number of people was asking for Eldar models, then GW would have made eldar.

Or, they'll move on to other minis games or leave the hobby.

I don't think GW cares much about what happens to people after they buy an army and books from them. I mean besides the fact that, if GW could achive it somehow, they would want their models to bio degrade after 4-5 year, so that no secondary market exists.

They definitely underproduced the SoB set, and took their sweet time making it to the point that 3rd party sellers had their own knockoff lines. GW left a lot of money on the table there. Do you understand that?

Your comment about GW not caring also shows how GW isn't making optimal moves, if true, because they are losing at customer retention. So I think you could screw your head on a bit straighter.

Saturmorn, don't get me wrong. I am pretty chill about GW these days. If you had come to me before the end of 4e, I was incredibly pissed at how GW had been handling releases, constantly expanding the number of Imperial factions while my Orks languished with ancient models and a codex from the start of the previous edition.

I've kinda calmed down about all of that now. The models are there, take them or leave them. GW support doesn't matter unless you are part of the "ecosystem", and I haven't been since 2010 or so at this point.

It is much nicer to just think "what would I like to have in my collection?" and not be limited by any of that stuff. If GW don't release new stuff I am interested in, that is absolutely fine by me. And if they do release stuff I am interested in, hey cool maybe I will pick it up.

But I get the frustration of people who are still part of the ecosystem. I don't blame them for being frustrated, it is frustrating because they are mis sold essentially. They are sold the idea that all factions are supported, but quickly find out if they picked Xenos that they are 4th tier at best and get disillusioned. It is a misalignment of expectations - they expect some sort of fair treatment with Space Marines, but they will never, ever get it.

My answer to that was to move to other systems using the same models and make sure I don't have to care what GW are doing too much. But not everyone wants to do that or has the abiltity to do it.

Or be me, play Cities of Sigmar and expect nothing and get nothing if not less than nothing.