As above really. Is being put in to white dwarf the beginning of the end for these factions?
I remember a rumour a little while ago about the clowns not selling very well and that's why they never got a second part of their range. This coupled with the WD news is not putting them in a good place IMHO. This is a real shame for myself as I was looking to move into some harlequins for my eldar. It would also marry up with the DW not being too successfull and not getting their 2nd wave either, which they didn't.
So what do others think? Could it be the death of the watch as a major faction?
Its going to depend entirely on the rules that each army gets. Deathwatch are already behind the curve by more than a year as they dont have access to any of the Vanguard line from Shadowspear or the Impulsor. That means they would need the following datasheets (at a minimum):
Plus the copy-paste strats from Codex:SM they cant currently use.
Thats the minimum they need to get to pre-PA par with Marines. Add in the obvious Phobos Kill Team, new stratagems, new relics and (maybe) new rules for their "Psychic Awakening Update", there's no way that fits into a White Dwarf article. Literally the only way a WD based supplement that they've described will be viable is if it is the only thing in that edition of the magazine, which they're not ever going to do.
Bottom line?
Gee Dubs just told every Deathwatch and Harlequin player to go feth themselves with a flaming chainsaw.
Jackal90 wrote: Blood angels once had rules in WD, as did sisters, they are far from dead.
Laziness doesn’t mean they are killing a faction.
Agreed so did Assassins and Sisters of Silence.
They just could not give them the space sadly :(
Personally I would happy for them to get a full Supplement like the other chosen Chapters - There is the usual Marine sub faction problem - if you give them all the cool stuff that Marines get and then their own - why do you play other Marines.
Harlequins do seem to be in a much worse place without even the HQ characters that they once had - before most other Codexs even existed.
Phobos armour team could just be a single datasheet, the same way that "Veterans" includes everything from Terminators to bikers and "Intercessors" also has Helblasters and Aggressors in their squads.
So then it's just one page for a Phobos kill team and one page for Watch Captain and Librarian. They didn't get the Repulsor, so might not get the Impulsor. Might get the Invictor, as that seems too Aliens/Avatar to not put in the anti-Xenos force.
Two pages of strats, phobos psychic powers, page of relics. page for whatever they have instead of doctrines or a reprint of that with a WL trait or two.
Then we're at 8 pages + a bit for some fluff. You could probably add in two pages and get the individual Phobos units in their too. I think articles have been 12-15 pages in the past haven't they?
Tastyfish wrote: Phobos armour team could just be a single datasheet, the same way that "Veterans" includes everything from Terminators to bikers and "Intercessors" also has Helblasters and Aggressors in their squads.
The Deathwatch codex has standalone Aggressors, Hellblasters, Inceptors, Terminators, and Bikes. Every component of the Phobos Kill Team will need its own standalone datasheet, with the possible exception of Infiltrators and Incursors.
Tastyfish wrote: They didn't get the Repulsor, so might not get the Impulsor. Might get the Invictor, as that seems too Aliens/Avatar to not put in the anti-Xenos force.
Deathwatch absolutely have the Repulsor, and the Executioner variant.
kryczek wrote: As above really. Is being put in to white dwarf the beginning of the end for these factions?
So what do others think? Could it be the death of the watch as a major faction?
Cheers, K.
No. Whenever people ask if this or that faction will be killed they're never right. GW doesn't kill 40K factions. Someone will bring up squads, but seriousely, it's been what, 30 years since then? Sisters have been renewed, Genestealers are back, feral Orks got new rules and Custodes have gotten an own Codex. There might be not a fan of Deathwatch or Harlies in the rules Team right now as was the case for Orks and Chaos Space Marines for about 3 editions. Look where they're now. Even Inquisition is still around, a faction where I thought myself they might get killed with 8 th Edition. Deathwatch and Harlies will stick around, both are already completely in Plastic, hence there's simply no failcast in their ranges that needs to be updated.
There is a very real chance they intended a further book that their printers in China can't complete or the delay from the lockdown in China pushes too far back. Given white dwarf is printed in the UK it allows them a quicker turn around, so they could potentially just port the stuff out of a separate PA book and into white dwarf so there isn't a 6-12 month long gap in the book series.
All this talk of it being lazy or having less content is an assumption at best. If they trim anything it'll be fluff pages, which the series isn't noted for doing well with anyway.
Sterling191 wrote: Its going to depend entirely on the rules that each army gets. Deathwatch are already behind the curve by more than a year as they dont have access to any of the Vanguard line from Shadowspear or the Impulsor. That means they would need the following datasheets (at a minimum):
Plus the copy-paste strats from Codex:SM they cant currently use.
Thats the minimum they need to get to pre-PA par with Marines. Add in the obvious Phobos Kill Team, new stratagems, new relics and (maybe) new rules for their "Psychic Awakening Update", there's no way that fits into a White Dwarf article. Literally the only way a WD based supplement that they've described will be viable is if it is the only thing in that edition of the magazine, which they're not ever going to do.
Bottom line?
Gee Dubs just told every Deathwatch and Harlequin player to go feth themselves with a flaming chainsaw.
A lot of the Phobos units do not have interchangeable shoulder pads - either as they are partially covered by a camo cloak or they are on a mono pose sculpt. As with the gravis captain this probably means even if some of these units are updated into Deathwatch, they will not all make the cut as GW is all about the no model no rules. My guess is no new units, instead a doctrine style ability, a relic/warlord trait and some copy paste strats.
Dudeface wrote: All this talk of it being lazy or having less content is an assumption at best. If they trim anything it'll be fluff pages, which the series isn't noted for doing well with anyway.
I mean, an assumption of laziness is hardly unfounded. Remember when they copy-pasted the Assassins article wholesale?
Ill be honest. I would have rather had my 1ksons PA rules in a WD. That way I wouldn't have had to spend $40 on the disappointment that was Ritual of th Damned.
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
The Salt Mine wrote: Ill be honest. I would have rather had my 1ksons PA rules in a WD. That way I wouldn't have had to spend $40 on the disappointment that was Ritual of th Damned.
Agreed. $10 for my legion's four pages of rules would have been preferable to $40.
So ritual of the damned? Not great for 1ksons... But the absolute frickin bomb for GK, and did for DA what everyone is claiming won't be done for DW.
Harlequins dying? I mean, you saw the new Harlequin model, right? To be fair, I only assumed it was harlequin because it has the same kind of shielding as the Solitaire does. Also because PA 9 will likely contain harlequins.
And by the way, just because DW and Harlies are gonna be in WD, that doesn't mean they aren't gonna get anything in PA.
I mean, for cryin out loud, SoS were in PA, and they got a] a new model in Aleya [though I admit she could be way better] and B] they're going to be in PA AND Talons of the Emperor is back!
By the way, if you're a naysayer, ask yourself this: did you ever post or believe that SoB would get nothing from PA?
Cuz if the answer is yes, here's a nice big plate of crow courtesy of Ephreal Stern. Eat up, and do enjoy. Maybe next time, you'll have a little bit of faith.
I mean, if not, I hear Stern really likes fire.
[Sorry that last part sounded so personal and mean... I've just had a really, really long day of listening to bad opinions, and I probably shouldn't be rage posting. Not healthy.]
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
Here here.
We'd be better off going back to the slim half-priced codex' for off-shoots again. Where they say stuff like "Tactical squad: Refer to Codex Space Marines" for all of the cross-over, and have some special rules / a few unique squads in them.
There's no need to make stuff like Deathwatch, Storm Troopers, or Blood Angels their own flippin' codex... Also, notice how it's almost entirely Imperium, specifically Marines, who get this stuff?
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
Here here.
We'd be better off going back to the slim half-priced codex' for off-shoots again. Where they say stuff like "Tactical squad: Refer to Codex Space Marines" for all of the cross-over, and have some special rules / a few unique squads in them.
There's no need to make stuff like Deathwatch, Storm Troopers, or Blood Angels their own flippin' codex... Also, notice how it's almost entirely Imperium, specifically Marines, who get this stuff?
Yeah.
The problem with that is since you don't have to play every faction, or even against any faction, you can already get what you want by simply not buying stuff you don't like. If your suggestions were taken, however, some people would not be able to play what they love.
If you think there's too much emphasis on space marines, I can see that- I even kinda agree. It's just that my solution to the problem isn't "let's take away something that already exists and that somebody somewhere loves;" my solution is "Let's make more of the things that the game currently lacks."
I happen to really like those small Imperial factions, because I'm a story-based campaign player. If I have 5 small detachments from different factions, rather than one big army, I can tell a better story. Since those factions can ally, I can also use my collection to play 40k, at various scales.
If y'all get your way, Inquisitor Dagmarl of the Ordo Hereticus and the Sisters of his Chamber Militant will not be able to call upon Inquistor Krale of the Ordo Malleus and his Grey Knights once they learn that the cult they're investigating has summoned daemons. Of course, if we happen to discover that it's a genestealer cult, we can summon Inquisitor Calyx of the ordo xenos and her deathwatch kill team. We haven't finished all the investigation missions yet, so I'm not sure which way it's going to go.
Why would you want to take all of that away from me when all you have to do to solve your problem is just not buy grey knights or death watch.
If you think there's too many Imperial factions, why don't you ask for a Kroot Dex or an Eldar Exodite Army, or try to get our DE Characters back, instead of pissing all over the insane variety of complex stories, allegiances and betrayals that can take place in campaign play exactly because of those interlocking factions you hate so much.
Hell, ask for a version of 40k that is the equivalent of Kill Team Arena, where designers limit unit choices, strategems or other special rules in the name of balance.
That way all the competition folk can enjoy themselves in a tiny little world where there aren't too many different combinations for them to prepare for, while the players who don't care about winning can continue to wonder how the Imperial Guard is going to feel when the have to let this strange new AdMech Ornithopter land at their airbase while the Eclesiarchy is watching, because it's a well known fact that Cardinal Drayus sees the AdMech as barely tolerable heretics, and he's got a whole mission of sisters to enforce his will.
TLDR; Don't like Deathwatch, eh? Cool. Don't buy'em. Everybody wins.
I hope so. Neither group warrants being their own faction. They should be elite units/detachments in the Eldar and Marine codices respectively.
Throw Grey Knights, Inquisition and Custodes into that pot as well. Wouldn't cry if every chapter off-shoot got rolled into the Marine dex either frankly.
BlaxicanX wrote: I hope so. Neither group warrants being their own faction. They should be elite units/detachments in the Eldar and Marine codices respectively.
Throw Grey Knights, Inquisition and Custodes into that pot as well. Wouldn't cry if every chapter off-shoot got rolled into the Marine dex either frankly.
Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
It would be like going back in time 30 years; I played back then, so I've been there. It sucked. Do you know what I spent more time doing? Wishing I had as many options as I have now.
GW rules writers probably just forgot those factions existed and are currently scrambling because all the books have been sent to the printers already.
BlaxicanX wrote: I hope so. Neither group warrants being their own faction. They should be elite units/detachments in the Eldar and Marine codices respectively.
Throw Grey Knights, Inquisition and Custodes into that pot as well. Wouldn't cry if every chapter off-shoot got rolled into the Marine dex either frankly.
Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
It would be like going back in time 30 years; I played back then, so I've been there. It sucked. Do you know what I spent more time doing? Wishing I had as many options as I have now.
Don't like it, don't buy it.
Yeah...I'm going to disagree and call you on some bs. They were able to have more units in 2nd edition than later editions (until recently). In fact in 3rd/4th etc. they actively went backwards and removed heaps of content from previous codices. So, yes, you could easily put Deathguard and Thousands back into the CSM codex. It wouldn't be any bigger than the current Space Marine codex.
Genestealer Cult could easily be put within a proper Tyranids codex as well. Grey Knights never needed to be an army, and they should have actually fething done the proper Imperial Agents faction, etc.
Given how thin phoenix rising is I can't see any justification for the quins not being included, but then I can't see the justification for the thinness of the drukhari content in particular either.
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
Here here.
We'd be better off going back to the slim half-priced codex' for off-shoots again. Where they say stuff like "Tactical squad: Refer to Codex Space Marines" for all of the cross-over, and have some special rules / a few unique squads in them.
There's no need to make stuff like Deathwatch, Storm Troopers, or Blood Angels their own flippin' codex... Also, notice how it's almost entirely Imperium, specifically Marines, who get this stuff?
Yeah.
The problem with that is since you don't have to play every faction, or even against any faction, you can already get what you want by simply not buying stuff you don't like. If your suggestions were taken, however, some people would not be able to play what they love.
If you think there's too much emphasis on space marines, I can see that- I even kinda agree. It's just that my solution to the problem isn't "let's take away something that already exists and that somebody somewhere loves;" my solution is "Let's make more of the things that the game currently lacks."
I happen to really like those small Imperial factions, because I'm a story-based campaign player. If I have 5 small detachments from different factions, rather than one big army, I can tell a better story. Since those factions can ally, I can also use my collection to play 40k, at various scales.
If y'all get your way, Inquisitor Dagmarl of the Ordo Hereticus and the Sisters of his Chamber Militant will not be able to call upon Inquistor Krale of the Ordo Malleus and his Grey Knights once they learn that the cult they're investigating has summoned daemons. Of course, if we happen to discover that it's a genestealer cult, we can summon Inquisitor Calyx of the ordo xenos and her deathwatch kill team. We haven't finished all the investigation missions yet, so I'm not sure which way it's going to go.
Why would you want to take all of that away from me when all you have to do to solve your problem is just not buy grey knights or death watch.
If you think there's too many Imperial factions, why don't you ask for a Kroot Dex or an Eldar Exodite Army, or try to get our DE Characters back, instead of pissing all over the insane variety of complex stories, allegiances and betrayals that can take place in campaign play exactly because of those interlocking factions you hate so much.
Hell, ask for a version of 40k that is the equivalent of Kill Team Arena, where designers limit unit choices, strategems or other special rules in the name of balance.
That way all the competition folk can enjoy themselves in a tiny little world where there aren't too many different combinations for them to prepare for, while the players who don't care about winning can continue to wonder how the Imperial Guard is going to feel when the have to let this strange new AdMech Ornithopter land at their airbase while the Eclesiarchy is watching, because it's a well known fact that Cardinal Drayus sees the AdMech as barely tolerable heretics, and he's got a whole mission of sisters to enforce his will.
TLDR; Don't like Deathwatch, eh? Cool. Don't buy'em. Everybody wins.
I dont get why people want to remove stuff they dont like? the shoe could easily fit on the other foot. Nobody is forcing you to spend money on something you dont like(no matter what internal motivation they may have).
Now if you're looking at this from the lens of competitive "feth you" play the easiest thing is to advocate for a tourney ruleset(cuz matched isnt "competitive"/"balanced"/whatever) directly from GW.
Rather than pissing in someone elses cornflakes, understand that just cuz the way you play, is not the only way.
DW should just have access to the entire Marine codex with a little keyword rule stating that they can use anything w the Astartes keyword but add X% points.
As long as it's on a similar quality to what you would get out of the PA books then I don't mind. I would actually prefer just a simple high quality PDF as that would be far easier imo.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
PA to my mind has been bad because its essentially just DLC rules content with massively variable relevance. Dark Eldar now can almost just ignore the whole thing. For GK its mandatory to be meta relevant. Other factions are paying for maybe 1-2 spells, two unit buffs and a few auto-use stratagems. Its bloat that could have gone into the relevant 8.5 Codex.
I guess they would argue the fluff - but they could all have been in one book frankly. Or all in White Dwarf. Businesses do need to sell you stuff, but this system isn't good because its not really optional.
I'm not hugely convinced GW releases stuff based on market research. Its based on internal whim/desire/inspiration. I'd argue Harlequins have sold badly due to poor rules when run mono and the mass duplication of models. Same reason you dont see that many mono Tempestus armies out there.
I'm a little sad that Harlequins won't be in the book with Stern, but I'm actually pretty hopeful about this approach. It's an opportunity to help these armies outside of the confines of PA, which they seem to need to be brought back into working order.
That's really the only reason I can see for not putting them in this book.
I'd point out that Age of Sigmar has several armies which have niche forces within single Battletomes and it works out really well in general. Instead of having lots of books, you've got one book that covers a whole range of armies that all share a similar core theme and appeal.
Furthermore it simplifies bringing in allies and such from the core army. If Harlequins go back to being a sub-army within Craftworld Codex then instead of having to buy both to bring a few Craftworld with your Harlequins, you can just buy one book and bring them along.
It streamlines the publications and even if it means that Harlequins don't get a big book with a huge army range of their own; at least they aren't left out to dry with small niche army range for years.
It's not an overall bad thing, its a far cry from being ended and removed. It also means that there's always potential for them to move-out again in the future. Perhaps at a time when GW has updated the Craftworld and Dark Eldar ranges to purge them of finecast and added a few new things here and there.
MistaGav wrote: As long as it's on a similar quality to what you would get out of the PA books then I don't mind. I would actually prefer just a simple high quality PDF as that would be far easier imo.
why you hate the pointy ears so bad (joking but the PA book was very mehhh with a few gems)
I suspect the Harle thing will be kind of samey with some mix / match traits of which maybe 3 or 4 might be on par with fusion gangsta drive by or very angry clowns what do more hitting
but seems more reasonable than taking up book space for a faction with only 8 (?) units
Don't really follow SM stuff but I get the feeling the DW just got power creeped by other marines as they seemed to doing okay(ish) prior to the newer books
We'd be better off going back to the slim half-priced codex' for off-shoots again. Where they say stuff like "Tactical squad: Refer to Codex Space Marines" for all of the cross-over, and have some special rules / a few unique squads in them.
There's no need to make stuff like Deathwatch, Storm Troopers, or Blood Angels their own flippin' codex... Also, notice how it's almost entirely Imperium, specifically Marines, who get this stuff?
Yeah.
It helps to know that Stormtroopers literally had their own codex last edition and lost it with 8th. And even then, that codex was half-assed because they needed to jam that new plastic Commissar model down our throats.
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolvesmight be getting supplement sized books moving forward whenever we see the rumored 8.5 edition finally hits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I'd point out that Age of Sigmar has several armies which have niche forces within single Battletomes and it works out really well in general. Instead of having lots of books, you've got one book that covers a whole range of armies that all share a similar core theme and appeal.
Sorry, but no. The biggest example of this is Cities of Sigmar and that book is not great for anything remotely similar to what you're describing.
It certainly allowed for them to publish the armies that didn't have books in one go for Order, but it did not do anything worthwhile for making them playable.
Age of Sigmar is also chopping and changing how it does factions - they went from all inclusive books to smaller faction books
Grand Alliance of Death had Legions of Nagash and now has Nighthaunts and Flesh Eater Courts as well as the new Death faction - still waiting for Soulblight
However most of these are very different and huge factions.
Marines - EVERY chapter has unique elements, there is absolutely no reason why the Angels and the Wolves have to have seperate codexes and can not be catered for with at most a supplement - the same as ALL the other First Founding Chapters.
A negative obvious impact of the continuing Angels and Wolves Codexes was the the recent PA campaign which was clogged with reprinted datesheets with different (or not even different names) and which has likely resulted in the Deathwatch and Harlequins having to be relegated to a WD article and so little for other factions.
Sure you could make Dark Angels and Wolves supplements to a third generic marine book, but it's inconvenient to players having to use an extra book and inconvenient to store owners for the extra shelf space, etc..
Just re-print the part that would be in the "generic" non-supplement book for Dark Angels and Iron Hands and Space Wolves and Salamanders in each of their books and it's a win-win for everyone.
Honestly Yinnari and Primaris both strike me as management driven choices thrust upon the design teams in order to try and increase profits with reduced investment. In the case of Yinnari it was combining two ranges into one; in the case of Primaris it was, what seem sto me, to be the next generation of Marines simply being released as their own division alongside instead of simply replacing marines - as has been done in the past over the years. Marines ran with it and Primaris is now quite distinct in some forms. Eldar didn't really go anywhere because Craftworld and Dark both had old stuff that needed updating to really make a combined arms army lift off powerfully. Esp the Craftworld when a big core of its infantry is finecast.
Overread wrote: I'd point out that Age of Sigmar has several armies which have niche forces within single Battletomes and it works out really well in general. Instead of having lots of books, you've got one book that covers a whole range of armies that all share a similar core theme and appeal.
Sorry, but no. The biggest example of this is Cities of Sigmar and that book is not great for anything remotely similar to what you're describing.
It certainly allowed for them to publish the armies that didn't have books in one go for Order, but it did not do anything worthwhile for making them playable.
What about Gloomspite Gitz, Orruks, Skaven?
Or how about we wind back the clock to when Space Marines were in one book.
Just because niche armies are within the same book doesn't make them any better nor worse than if they have their own - its purely in the hands of whoever writes it.
Furthermore Harlequins use Craftworld stuff anyway. If they get a combined book it makes it easier to build either force and to combine the forces with all the rules in one place instead of spread over two books.
Ynnari had the big narrative advantage of making Eldar (not just Craftworlds) active participants in the actual 40K fluff.
The problem with Eldar was that their background was just so atrocious and irrelevant, largely stuck on "stuff that happened ages ago and now we're all sitting around in Craftworlds/Comorroagh/Webway and mope about the old days".
They were basically the origin-story-opening-scene-disposable for Slaanesh that somehow stuck around for the actual game, because it was a weak copy of the generic fantasy-elves clichee-lore of "the old, past-its-prime-race".
Ynnari actually give Eldar relevant background for engaging in the 40K setting and thus ironed out the by far weakest slice of the early-days 40K lore.
The only reason Harlies and DW are getting the WD treatment is because GW were going to do nothing, realised the community backlash would be horrendous and have now scrambled to offer something at least for them.
Why do I think this? GW have said that the Deathwatch rules are 'done' and will be released quickly while Harlequins didn't even get a hint of a release date. The Deathwatch rules will copy and paste other marine rules, more or less, so they should be easier to complete.
So I actually think this is a positive in a weird retrospect. GW have at least had the thought to do something for these factions, even if it is lacklustre and reeks of low effort, it is surely better than nothing.
I also agree with the general sentiment that there are far too many subfaction codexes and they are focused on too few factions. Where's the Kroot codex? The Grot Revolushun codex? Speed Freeks? GW need to stop doing 'Marine sub sub faction 339' as a codex or spread the love to factions other than Imperium and Chaos. It's breeding discontent.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The only reason Harlies and DW are getting the WD treatment is because GW were going to do nothing, realised the community backlash would be horrendous and have now scrambled to offer something at least for them.
Why do I think this? GW have said that the Deathwatch rules are 'done' and will be released quickly while Harlequins didn't even get a hint of a release date. The Deathwatch rules will copy and paste other marine rules, more or less, so they should be easier to complete.
So I actually think this is a positive in a weird retrospect. GW have at least had the thought to do something for these factions, even if it is lacklustre and reeks of low effort, it is surely better than nothing.
I also agree with the general sentiment that there are far too many subfaction codexes and they are focused on too few factions. Where's the Kroot codex? The Grot Revolushun codex? Speed Freeks? GW need to stop doing 'Marine sub sub faction 339' as a codex or spread the love to factions other than Imperium and Chaos. It's breeding discontent.
Sure.
But why include the Harlequin and DW symbols in the ("all factions get rules!!!") PA announcements back in August (?) (they weren't even among the symbols they initially missed, like Space Wolves). And if they knew (presumably back last summer) that they wouldn't include Harlequins and Deathwatch, why not say so?
What is the absolute idea-case scenario this could've gone for GW, even without Corona or anything?
Was it a good thing not everyone got stuff in Vigilus? No, But there never was the expectation either. While it sucked for Harlequins and Necrons and many other to sit out that campaign, at least it didn't necessarly generate that expectation that "everyone" would get their turn.
And, if by some marketing / website-people mistake, the "all factions will get something" was an honest mistake, wouldn't it make sense to clear that up ASAP, rather than wait 6-8 months?
Harlequins and DW getting rules in the White Dwarf isn't in itself a terrible thing. They'll probably better than "basically no rules" that Drukhari or GSC or some of the others stuck with. Hell, because they probably do them on the fly with little testing, there's a reasonable chance those rules will have some utterly bonkers combinations.
It's just the process that's puzzling.
Edit: First announcement graphic where GW actually forgot a bunch of factions such as Space Wolves, AdMech, etc.. (but did include Clowns and DW)
In the end, Angels don't need to be their own codex, Death Guard and Thousand Sons don't need to be their own codex, and the Inquisition + forces that have fought for them before (Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch) could've been one codex.
Kanluwen wrote: The Inquisition are not and never should have been "an army". They should have been a single frigging character, end of story.
It's a bit like when AoS had Skaven Eshin and Dark Elf Shadowblades in their own "armies" and the had perhaps one or two models each. Assassin "armies" don't work because by their very lore and nature they are small scale super elite often down to only one or two operatives or a small team designed for infiltration and specific action. Making them into "armies" within factions that already have armies tends to make them either daft or redundant because they already have an army, its the factions army
Of course if any race could make an army of assassin's its the Imperium But I do agree that just because they can make more books doesn't mean it works out well - sometimes ideas work best as niche.s
True. They don't even need separate unit choices. Xeno trooper, xeno elite, xeno caster, xeno warleader, xeno specialist.
xeno heavy weapon unit, xeno assault weapon unit etc.
Oh, fellas, come on! We can get more reductionist than this! We get rid of the shooting and melee and psychic phases, and replace it with the damage phase, in which you roll a unit’s damage capacity range dice and deal damage to another unit on the board!
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
Apple Peel wrote: Oh, fellas, come on! We can get more reductionist than this! We get rid of the shooting and melee and psychic phases, and replace it with the damage phase, in which you roll a unit’s damage capacity range dice and deal damage to another unit on the board!
that would be stupid. But if xenos were reduced to one book, we wouldn't have to worry about eldar or orc balance. And GW could focus on getting more in depth with loyalist faction rules. Each WD could have a small list for something like a crusade army, that gives cool new rules for an army made out of specific black templars and sob units . Next month a hunter DA list. The a ad mecha explorator army that has different rules from regular ad mecha. GW could focus on the good stuff that people want, and not waste time on armies that aren't even human.
Dudeface wrote: There is a very real chance they intended a further book that their printers in China can't complete or the delay from the lockdown in China pushes too far back. Given white dwarf is printed in the UK it allows them a quicker turn around, so they could potentially just port the stuff out of a separate PA book and into white dwarf so there isn't a 6-12 month long gap in the book series.
All this talk of it being lazy or having less content is an assumption at best. If they trim anything it'll be fluff pages, which the series isn't noted for doing well with anyway.
Once you trudge through all the anti-supplement hate and bias that always rears it's ugly head, I think the above has the most credence to it.
Fact: Harlequins and Deathwatch had their symbols on the Psychic Awakening update list from the very beginning.
So, obviously something changed along the way. Perhaps they were slated for a book but GW just couldn't figure out how it fit with the so called story progression.
My honest take? Pariah and the Deathwatch/Harlie book were already done, with the former being the last book slated to wrap up the story. GW then realized that their entire schedule has been hammered by the pandemic, and made the hard choice to axe a book so as to not put a huge delay on other projects. Pariah is too important as it wraps up the series, so maybe GW will just take the fluff and rules that it created for Deathwatch/Harlies, and decided that the best damage control would be to place them in a WD instead to cut back on production delays.
If that's the case, it ain't so grim as the content will be the same, just not the presentation. I really hope this is the case since I love both of these armies.
That's why I'm also hoping that GW will do an announcement on it this week after seeing some of the backlash from players after Saturday's revelation.
You're right, Warcry was easier to release a faction outside of White Dwarf and yet they still chose to do it.
Let's not pretend that the rules contents for factions in Psychic Awakening have been so extensive that they can't be in a White Dwarf. The only exception has been DA, BA, and SW and that is because it's copy/pasting the Vanguard stuff into these factions.
bullyboy wrote: My honest take? Pariah and the Deathwatch/Harlie book were already done, with the former being the last book slated to wrap up the story. GW then realized that their entire schedule has been hammered by the pandemic, and made the hard choice to axe a book so as to not put a huge delay on other projects. Pariah is too important as it wraps up the series, so maybe GW will just take the fluff and rules that it created for Deathwatch/Harlies, and decided that the best damage control would be to place them in a WD instead to cut back on production delays.
If that's the case, it ain't so grim as the content will be the same, just not the presentation. I really hope this is the case since I love both of these armies.
That's why I'm also hoping that GW will do an announcement on it this week after seeing some of the backlash from players after Saturday's revelation.
What's the situation where delaying printing is prevent them from announcing future projects? They're perfectly happy to delay engine war, pariah, and war of the spider. What makes the DW/harlie book so special that suddenly, nope, THAT book would put a huge delay on future projects. These other 3 books we're delaying? Yeah your armies are still awesome and get big shiny books in the future. Why aren't THOSE in white dwarf? Besides, how is printing books (understandably delayed) preventing future projects? They're entirely separate issues. It's not like the rules and lore team is sitting at the printing presses waiting for it to blow over before they hit print.
Kanluwen wrote: The Inquisition are not and never should have been "an army". They should have been a single frigging character, end of story.
Which is how it was with Daemonhunters and Witchhunters. There's not so many units in each army of Grey Knights, Sisters, and Deathwatch that they couldn't BE condensed into a single codex. I'm pretty sure even if you did that the main Marine codex would sti be bigger anyway.
Let's be honest. Most "put it all in one book" people are probably using pirated copies of codexes and Battlescribe, so are just blowing wind.
This is a collectors game. If you don't like collecting, there are far cheaper hobbies out there.
Death Guard have more unique units than Blood Angels. New units, because this is new GW. Your old models are basically Legends. Just move on. And I played a mono DG army for 3 editions.
You can't lump it into one mega encyclopedia and expect people to carry it around. Remeber the 5th edition rulebook? That thing was heavier than my entire army. People complain about lack of content, then complain about bloat. You cant have it both.
bullyboy wrote: My honest take? Pariah and the Deathwatch/Harlie book were already done, with the former being the last book slated to wrap up the story. GW then realized that their entire schedule has been hammered by the pandemic, and made the hard choice to axe a book so as to not put a huge delay on other projects. Pariah is too important as it wraps up the series, so maybe GW will just take the fluff and rules that it created for Deathwatch/Harlies, and decided that the best damage control would be to place them in a WD instead to cut back on production delays.
If that's the case, it ain't so grim as the content will be the same, just not the presentation. I really hope this is the case since I love both of these armies.
That's why I'm also hoping that GW will do an announcement on it this week after seeing some of the backlash from players after Saturday's revelation.
What's the situation where delaying printing is prevent them from announcing future projects? They're perfectly happy to delay engine war, pariah, and war of the spider. What makes the DW/harlie book so special that suddenly, nope, THAT book would put a huge delay on future projects. These other 3 books we're delaying? Yeah your armies are still awesome and get big shiny books in the future. Why aren't THOSE in white dwarf? Besides, how is printing books (understandably delayed) preventing future projects? They're entirely separate issues. It's not like the rules and lore team is sitting at the printing presses waiting for it to blow over before they hit print.
Books need to be printed. Before we went on lockdown, I assume Engine War has already been printed, not sure on War of the Spider. GW has many other projects in the line, new releases, long term plans etc. I am sure they have had numerous meetings on how to manage the next year or two of releases in light of the current situation, with many changes having to be made to meet their strategic plan. They have large and small projects. Perhaps the printing of another PA book was deemed not necessary (possibly along with some other minor projects), to not delay some of the larger plans in their schedule, the big money makers.
Almost every business has had to change it's plans and identity at this time, I'm sure GW is among them.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
And, unfortunately in the case of xenos, GW seems more likely to remove rules for a unit than bring out a model for it.
Sunny Side Up wrote:Ynnari had the big narrative advantage of making Eldar (not just Craftworlds) active participants in the actual 40K fluff.
The problem with Eldar was that their background was just so atrocious and irrelevant, largely stuck on "stuff that happened ages ago and now we're all sitting around in Craftworlds/Comorroagh/Webway and mope about the old days".
They were basically the origin-story-opening-scene-disposable for Slaanesh that somehow stuck around for the actual game, because it was a weak copy of the generic fantasy-elves clichee-lore of "the old, past-its-prime-race".
Ynnari actually give Eldar relevant background for engaging in the 40K setting and thus ironed out the by far weakest slice of the early-days 40K lore.
Ynarri are what actually made me start a pointy-eared army.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:In the end, Angels don't need to be their own codex, Death Guard and Thousand Sons don't need to be their own codex, and the Inquisition + forces that have fought for them before (Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch) could've been one codex.
Sunny Side Up wrote:All those Xenos don't need their own book either. Just put Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc.. into an Enemies of the Imperium book and done.
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
Marines are by far the worst offenders when it comes to minor subfactions getting their own books. They would be the first to go. UM, BA, DA, SW, DW, SA, GK, WS, RG, IH, custodes, You think they'd go for that? There'd be fething riots.
3 eldar books? That's too many, fellas. A dozen marine books? Sounds about right.
You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
It's not. GW cannot steer demand.
Hell, they tried for over two decades, having a perfectly matched release for WHFB and 40K. One month WHFB, one month 40K. One army book WHFB, one codex 40K, etc.., etc.. Exactly the same shelf-space in all GW stores.
If that would shift consumer preferences by even a tiny fraction of a percentage of a percentage, WHFB would've never died.
LoTR was for several years getting more product than 40K and WHFB combined. Why would GW want to change that? If it were a perpetuating cycle, LoTR would still be GW's biggest game by a giant margin.
Bigger companies have tried. New Coke. Apple TV. DeLoran Motor Company.
Trust me, if there was a snowball's chance in hell companies could influence what their customers buy with some predictability through the product they release, they'd be over that in a heartbeat. All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Your rationale makes sense in terms of satisfying the existing base only.
Adding new factions captures the new audience. I came back because of genestealers and sisters. Period. There have been posts in this thread about people who started collecting Eldar because of the Ynarri- they pulled me into CWE. New factions do make money. It's why this edition has the highest sales in GW history. How much did they make on Aleya and Valerian?
Half or more of the 70% of people who play space marines also play armies that aren't space marines, and some of those people actually like small factions because there isn't as much to collect.
There is such an abundance of material for marine players that you've reached the point of diminishing returns. Investing in new factions grows the base. Releasing for existing ranges merely maintains it.
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
This is a terrible idea and should be ignored.
Seriously. I'm sure I am not alone in not wanting 'monster books' to become a thing. If I had my way, every book from now on goes like the Marines do when possible: Single book with all the generic stuff, supplement books with specific subfactions. I don't ever want to pay for Ultramarines trash in my Raven Guard books again.
GW have control over what people buy. Typically it goes:
1. Models that look good - and work in game.
2. Models that look bad - but work in game.
3. Models that look good - but are a bit rubbish.
4. Models that look bad - and are a bit rubbish.
Pretty sure every FLGS says this can be seen for essentially every gaming system.
WHFB died because the game itself had bad rules, balance was a creeping joke, and new players were told "oh you want to start playing Empire? Right you need 40 Halberdiers. Are they good? Not really, but they provide a good blob to put your characters in and then buff up with lots of magic. You need to buy those too, also knights, cannons and basically a full 2k points list."
"What do you need to start 40k? At a minimum idk, 2 boxes of troops and a clampack HQ? Oh you and all your friends prefer to go for that? What a surprise."
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
This is a terrible idea and should be ignored.
Seriously. I'm sure I am not alone in wanting 'monster books' to become a thing. If I had my way, every book from now on goes like the Marines do when possible:
Single book with all the generic stuff, supplement books with specific subfactions. I don't ever want to pay for Ultramarines trash in my Raven Guard books again.
Except the IG codex isn't much of a "monster" book and yet manages to do the most diverse human fighting force in the setting, competitively and thematically capable of multiple distinct faction lists . You can do your elite airborne commando lists, you can do infantry hordes, you can do tank companies with scoring battle tanks, etc ad nauseum and all with a gazillion special rules for different flavors. You can represent a far wider array of forces, with substantially more divergent backgrounds, using the IG codex than the torrent of SM books provides for a handful of botique subgroups, and does so without getting bogged down with powercreeping rules or absurdly granular focus. I'm not trying to hold the IG codex up as a paragon of game design, because it's not, but in this respect it's hard to see where a downside for people running any sort of IG army to have to share everything in one book and not need a separate one for tank companies and stormtroopers.
The complaint of having to pay for having "pay for X in my Y book" is...pretty absurd Both based on the fact that such content isn't going to change the cost measureably (they're mostly pretty picture books anyway), and having it there isn't hurting anything and makes it easier for you to reference if facing such an opponent (and if you do end up wanting it you do have to pay for and store and carry around another book that's mostly filler anyway).
Besides, with the crowd that's on a forum like Dakka, lets not lie to ourselves, we're not only buying just our codex anyway, we're buying 'em all or a large fraction of them (or pirating, in which case, none of this matters)
40k is the only game I can think of where people treat the idea of getting access to more stuff in the same book is a bad thing, or who somehow think that having stuff from multiple niche subfactions share the same printed material is somehow literally offensive
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
The only cases you're going to find are likely to be:
* Remnant references to discontinued (Legendary or whatever it's called) models.
* Units written for Forge World campaign books
Because Chaos Knights would pretty much be the exception that demonstrates the rule that everyone else has to live within.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
The only cases you're going to find are likely to be:
* Remnant references to discontinued (Legendary or whatever it's called) models.
* Units written for Forge World campaign books
Because Chaos Knights would pretty much be the exception that demonstrates the rule that everyone else has to live within.
Grand Master Nemesis Dreadnknight? Catachan grenade launchers?
Chosen, sorcerer with jump pack, chaos lord with jump pack armed with anything besides lightning claws, chaos lord on foot armed with anything besides a thunderhammer, aspiring champions with combi weapons, really if we go with weapon options not included in kits we could go all day. That's why the bits market exists.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
It's not. GW cannot steer demand.
Hell, they tried for over two decades, having a perfectly matched release for WHFB and 40K. One month WHFB, one month 40K. One army book WHFB, one codex 40K, etc.., etc.. Exactly the same shelf-space in all GW stores.
If that would shift consumer preferences by even a tiny fraction of a percentage of a percentage, WHFB would've never died.
LoTR was for several years getting more product than 40K and WHFB combined. Why would GW want to change that? If it were a perpetuating cycle, LoTR would still be GW's biggest game by a giant margin.
Bigger companies have tried. New Coke. Apple TV. DeLoran Motor Company.
Trust me, if there was a snowball's chance in hell companies could influence what their customers buy with some predictability through the product they release, they'd be over that in a heartbeat. All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
No, i am not talking about fad manipulation i am talking about sister of battle style deinvestment cycles.
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
You have no evidence of anything, see below;
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
So their marketing pushed failed does not mean it's impossible to drive demand.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
Source this was their intent? That it was supposed to be the "entry product"? Source as to their resources spent on this? As above though.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
No, they wouldn't. For proof of this please see the huge numbers of new SoB players since their kits have been updated. Coincidence or are people actually driven by model support as much as anything else?
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
You have no proof that marines are intrinsically more appealling. You are making assumptions that I disagree with, particularly based on the evidence I have provided with regards SoB. What you can state, with relative confidence, is that a faction that is continually supported, with new models, that are provided less expensively than others, sell well.
In other words - GW absolutely drive demand with their actions. Perhaps they make more profit on Space Marine kits relative to others or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
There is no crying here, dudeface. Stop strawmanning. Simply a statement of suggestions that may help explain the seemingly incomprehensible popularity of marines outside of 'they're just cooler bro!'
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
You have no evidence of anything, see below;
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
So their marketing pushed failed does not mean it's impossible to drive demand.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
Source this was their intent? That it was supposed to be the "entry product"? Source as to their resources spent on this? As above though.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
No, they wouldn't. For proof of this please see the huge numbers of new SoB players since their kits have been updated. Coincidence or are people actually driven by model support as much as anything else?
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
You have no proof that marines are intrinsically more appealling. You are making assumptions that I disagree with, particularly based on the evidence I have provided with regards SoB. What you can state, with relative confidence, is that a faction that is continually supported, with new models, that are provided less expensively than others, sell well.
In other words - GW absolutely drive demand with their actions. Perhaps they make more profit on Space Marine kits relative to others or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
There is no crying here, dudeface. Stop strawmanning. Simply a statement of suggestions that may help explain the seemingly incomprehensible popularity of marines outside of 'they're just cooler bro!'
Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
Sterling191 wrote: Its going to depend entirely on the rules that each army gets. Deathwatch are already behind the curve by more than a year as they dont have access to any of the Vanguard line from Shadowspear or the Impulsor. That means they would need the following datasheets (at a minimum):
Plus the copy-paste strats from Codex:SM they cant currently use.
Thats the minimum they need to get to pre-PA par with Marines. Add in the obvious Phobos Kill Team, new stratagems, new relics and (maybe) new rules for their "Psychic Awakening Update", there's no way that fits into a White Dwarf article. Literally the only way a WD based supplement that they've described will be viable is if it is the only thing in that edition of the magazine, which they're not ever going to do.
Bottom line?
Gee Dubs just told every Deathwatch and Harlequin player to go feth themselves with a flaming chainsaw.
That's great considering DW and Quins are two of my 4 armies
ThePorcupine wrote: It's a bodyguard unit for a new sister character. They come as one unit, so... almost assuredly cannot be taken by harlequins.
Kinda remains to be seen. Jarran Kell is a 'bodyguard unit' for Ursukar Creed, yet can be taken without him. Ghazghkull and Makari are supposed to always be together, yet you can field them separately.
All we know with regards to Stern and her Harlequin Friend are that they can act as one unit.
Dudeface wrote: Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
Because its the age old circle.
Harlequins are getting squatted because they are so unpopular. They are unpopular because GW doesn't give them good stuff (new models, better rules).
Its irrational for GW to waste time giving stuff to a tiny faction, they should just focus on the popular ones. Having almost every release be for Marines is boring and self-defeating.
Yeah, but 70% of people play Marines, because they are intrinsically more appealing. Notice me Guilliman Senpai.
Dudeface wrote: Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
Because its the age old circle.
Harlequins are getting squatted because they are so unpopular. They are unpopular because GW doesn't give them good stuff (new models, better rules).
Its irrational for GW to waste time giving stuff to a tiny faction, they should just focus on the popular ones. Having almost every release be for Marines is boring and self-defeating.
Yeah, but 70% of people play Marines, because they are intrinsically more appealing. Notice me Guilliman Senpai.
We know that other NON MARINE stuff sells - otherwise they would not be releasing the new range of Ad Mech or the huge Sisters update. Strangely enough if you make new stuff for non Marine factions it sells - how is this not clear to you?
I am part of the 70% (where EXACTLY does this number come from) who plays Marines - but like many veterans I have loads of armies including Xenos. So what does that prove?
Daedalus81 wrote: They made a new model for Harlequins...so that means they're getting squatted? Really?
Apparently people are upset that they'll have to pay $10 for new rules instead of $40.
The horror.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePorcupine wrote: It's a bodyguard unit for a new sister character. They come as one unit, so... almost assuredly cannot be taken by harlequins.
Or they could be taken in either army. We don't know yet.
I'd say it makes them more likely to be lazy, uninspired trash rules, but hey...I play GSC, so like, no assurances that being in a book won't get you those!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I think the game needs fewer factions, but this is not the way I'd do it. I'd roll all marines into one book and squat the DW and GK for starters.
I have no idea why marines are so popular. They are quite boring, really.
Why do you still play marines, then? Come party with the fun factions, my dude.
Dudeface wrote: Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
Because its the age old circle.
Harlequins are getting squatted because they are so unpopular. They are unpopular because GW doesn't give them good stuff (new models, better rules).
Its irrational for GW to waste time giving stuff to a tiny faction, they should just focus on the popular ones. Having almost every release be for Marines is boring and self-defeating.
Yeah, but 70% of people play Marines, because they are intrinsically more appealing. Notice me Guilliman Senpai.
Yeah, it is worth noting that, if you subscribe to the theory that competitiveness in some way equals sales, Harlequins have literally never not been one of the worst armies in the game. There was a small, brief window after Shining Spears got nerfed and before Ynnari got dumpstered that one single unit from the Harlequins' codex was taken in a competitive list, and that's been literally it since their release. They've always been one of the least played and lowest winrate factions.
Martel732 wrote: I think the game needs fewer factions, but this is not the way I'd do it. I'd roll all marines into one book and squat the DW and GK for starters.
I have no idea why marines are so popular. They are quite boring, really.
Maybe, but personal opinion of a few people isn't a sensible guideline.
If GW wanted to bring the game down to, say, 10 Factions/Codexes, the rational way to go about it would be to try to create 10 books that meet roughly 10% of the sales.
In other words, factions doing sub-10% get merged, factions doing above 10% get split up into sub-factions.
Making such choices on the basis of the fluff written by your interns, which is easily one of the least important and most easily changed aspects of the entire construct is just insane.
I guess. As I said, it's a mystery to me how and why marines are such a huge percentage of their business. As time has gone on, they've becoming a dumber and dumber faction.
Martel732 wrote: I guess. As I said, it's a mystery to me how and why marines are such a huge percentage of their business. As time has gone on, they've becoming a dumber and dumber faction.
Why were humans always the most popular race in wow? People like self-insert factions that they feel like are like them but unrelentingly awesome.
It also cannot be overstated how much always being in the starter box helps. I've seen close to probably 200 new people come and go into the hobby since mid-5th when I started, and I would say 3 out of 4 start with one of the two factions that happens to be in the starter box at the time. Sunk Cost Fallacy is an extremely real thing, and the most common way I see people quickly burn out of the hobby is buying up a 2,000 point marine army super fast to try and play the same size games everyone else is, then having a big pile of gray plastic that they don't *really* like, but that they bought into becaue they were already 75$ into it when they started, and they lose interest and leave.
the_scotsman wrote: Why were humans always the most popular race in wow? People like self-insert factions that they feel like are like them but unrelentingly awesome.
It also cannot be overstated how much always being in the starter box helps. I've seen close to probably 200 new people come and go into the hobby since mid-5th when I started, and I would say 3 out of 4 start with one of the two factions that happens to be in the starter box at the time. Sunk Cost Fallacy is an extremely real thing, and the most common way I see people quickly burn out of the hobby is buying up a 2,000 point marine army super fast to try and play the same size games everyone else is, then having a big pile of gray plastic that they don't *really* like, but that they bought into becaue they were already 75$ into it when they started, and they lose interest and leave.
Blood Elves cannot stop laughing.
Totally agree with you on the starter box though. The fact its always been Marines means almost every new generation of players starts out with a huge percentage playing Marines. Which does cause some people to burnout - but as you say, when they have a load of kits, it seems weird to start from scratch with something else.
Martel732 wrote: I think the game needs fewer factions, but this is not the way I'd do it. I'd roll all marines into one book and squat the DW and GK for starters.
I have no idea why marines are so popular. They are quite boring, really.
That's a terrible idea, both Deathwatch and Grey Knights have a strong variation in flavour from regular marines. Granted, a solo codex for each could be changed as they don't need a plethora of units, that could be trimmed down but good luck facing the backlash after doing that.
Marines were OK until they made all the extra add on codexes (was not necessary), but still need to keep BA, DA and SW separate due to kits. You could I guess combine the latter 3 into one book I suppose, just as you could combine Grey Knights and Deathwatch.
Now, you could contain many of the factions into one book, but what does that achieve except for it being a much larger book?
The major problem is when you have spent so much time expanding the universe onto the tabletop, it's hard to go backwards without pissing off the villagers.
I'm on the fence with Harlequins (and I have a decent sized Harlie army), I love the concept, the miniatures, the rules (their masques, WTs, strats and relics are better than any of the other Aeldari forces) but they lack the units of a full force.
I think Harlequines would be fine if the Craftworld army was more complete in terms of modern updated sculpts. When the core theme of the army infantry - aspect warriors - are nearly all finecast; it really eats into the army in general.
Eldar needs a big update for the Craftworld.
This to me suggests that starting a side army like Harlequins just isn't the right time to devote resources to making them bigger and better when the "core faction" needs that attention first.
Heck I've wanted an Exocides army from GW for years, but even I would feel really bad if GW went that path soon before updating the main army.
Tyranids did it right in that the core army is basically all pretty updated. Biovores/pyrovores and lictors/deathleapers are the only elite style models left with finecast. Meanwhile there's only one hero (Red Terror*) left in finecast.
So adding in Genestealer cults with a massive wave of new models worked fine. Sure it would have been nice to get new termagaunts without split heads; or a new fancier Genestealer purestrain release etc... but by and large the time was ripe to take the army and expand a sub-faction into a full army from it.
*technically that is about 50% of the named heroes for Tyranids at present though... and 100% of the unique character models (swarmlord is part of the tyrant kit)
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't Deathwatch really just be done with a single upgrade sprue box for primaris marine kits? What is there in their general concept to warrant a major release in the first place?
BertBert wrote: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't Deathwatch really just be done with a single upgrade sprue box for primaris marine kits? What is there in their general concept to warrant a major release in the first place?
God no, ugh! The veteran kit is far more interesting than the Primaris add on. In reality, they don;t need much...you have the kill teams and their insertion vehicle, the Corvus Blackstar. Now that they have added a Primaris kill team, without a real delivery vehicle, the cat's out of the bag. At this point, might as well add a Phobos kill team (Incursors, infiltrators, suppressors, reivers) and then put the snipers on the side. Plus the new transport, and the army is fleshed out even more.
What really bugs me about the whole Deathwatch/Harlequins switch, is how in the heck does GW deem that Custodes, Fabius Bile and assassins need a book (Death Guard I understand), but Deathwatch and Harlequins don't? Adding a Phobos kill team looks like an absolute no brainer to increase sales of those kits. Harlequins are a little trickier, but could have easily be slotted in with the Pariah book with maybe access to using the new sidekick for Stern.
Martel732 wrote: I think the game needs fewer factions, but this is not the way I'd do it. I'd roll all marines into one book and squat the DW and GK for starters.
I have no idea why marines are so popular. They are quite boring, really.
That's a terrible idea, both Deathwatch and Grey Knights have a strong variation in flavour from regular marines. Granted, a solo codex for each could be changed as they don't need a plethora of units, that could be trimmed down but good luck facing the backlash after doing that.
Marines were OK until they made all the extra add on codexes (was not necessary), but still need to keep BA, DA and SW separate due to kits. You could I guess combine the latter 3 into one book I suppose, just as you could combine Grey Knights and Deathwatch.
Now, you could contain many of the factions into one book, but what does that achieve except for it being a much larger book?
The major problem is when you have spent so much time expanding the universe onto the tabletop, it's hard to go backwards without pissing off the villagers.
I'm on the fence with Harlequins (and I have a decent sized Harlie army), I love the concept, the miniatures, the rules (their masques, WTs, strats and relics are better than any of the other Aeldari forces) but they lack the units of a full force.
Why exactly is it a terrible idea? The game is saturated with power armor. Cut some if out. Start with the most Mary Sue.
Neither DW nor GK should have existed to being with, imo.
BertBert wrote: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't Deathwatch really just be done with a single upgrade sprue box for primaris marine kits? What is there in their general concept to warrant a major release in the first place?
They've always been kind of the "anti-xenos gadgetry" marine subfaction. To me, they've always had more of an interesting core concept than other factions that are fully fledged codex-having specialboys, like the Dark Angels and Blood Angels, who have about as many unique units as you'd expect a pretty much codex-compliant chapter to have - i.e, a few slightly distinct tweaks and flourishes on their elite units with a largely unchanged marine core.
Do they need a whole CODEX? ....nah, probably not honestly. You could faithfully fit what's cool about the DW into an Inquisition/Imperial Agents codex. Just give them access to most marine supporting units like tanks, transports and basic HQs, and then special hyper-customizable datasheets for Kill Teams and Watch Masters/Captains with the special DW gizmos.
Then again, I think you could probably capture most of what's unique about SW, BA, and DA into a kind of customizable elite marine unit creator. Pick a template unit (Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Vanvets, Company Vets, Sternguard, Company Vets on Bikes) and have a number of special weapons and abilities you can choose to represent the elite units and tactics used by your chapter. "They're vanvets, but they have shiny 2+ armor and scary masks!" "They're terminators, but they can take plasma cannons and they ignore morale!" "They're company vets, but they..." honestly I don't know what makes a wolf guard different from a company vet. Wolf hats?
Martel732 wrote: Why are there such limited anti-Xenos gadgets? There are so few marines, they should all already have this stuff.
The snowflake marines could simply be a few pages in a main codex. Or kill a couple of them off.
beacuse before Belligerent Carl was allowed to get away with everything, only the secretive, out of the public eye marine chapters had weird xenotech stuff.
now, Carl is just like "HEY EVERYONE LOOK I MADE THIS COOL AI GIZMO FOR PRIMARIS MARINES! IT USES TAU PULSE TECHNOLOGY AND NECRON GAUSS STUFF AND I DESIGNED THE AI USING TYRANID WARP FUEL" and the inquisition just gives him the old thumbs-up.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
found the entries to remove for the next DE codex
It's funny cos it's true
Ya know, you could have it worse, you could get Corsaired
Dudeface wrote: Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
Because its the age old circle.
Harlequins are getting squatted because they are so unpopular. They are unpopular because GW doesn't give them good stuff (new models, better rules).
Its irrational for GW to waste time giving stuff to a tiny faction, they should just focus on the popular ones. Having almost every release be for Marines is boring and self-defeating.
Yeah, but 70% of people play Marines, because they are intrinsically more appealing. Notice me Guilliman Senpai.
Martel732 wrote: Why are there such limited anti-Xenos gadgets? There are so few marines, they should all already have this stuff.
The snowflake marines could simply be a few pages in a main codex. Or kill a couple of them off.
beacuse before Belligerent Carl was allowed to get away with everything, only the secretive, out of the public eye marine chapters had weird xenotech stuff.
now, Carl is just like "HEY EVERYONE LOOK I MADE THIS COOL AI GIZMO FOR PRIMARIS MARINES! IT USES TAU PULSE TECHNOLOGY AND NECRON GAUSS STUFF AND I DESIGNED THE AI USING TYRANID WARP FUEL" and the inquisition just gives him the old thumbs-up.
Wow, which unit has that? Because I want to add it to my army. I just got bolters, grenades, plasma, flamers, lasers. missiles and oddly machine guns in my Primaris army. I like them well enough, but it is really is just standard Imperial arms. What you describe sounds great. I must have missed it though.
Martel732 wrote: I think the game needs fewer factions, but this is not the way I'd do it. I'd roll all marines into one book and squat the DW and GK for starters.
I have no idea why marines are so popular. They are quite boring, really.
That's a terrible idea, both Deathwatch and Grey Knights have a strong variation in flavour from regular marines. Granted, a solo codex for each could be changed as they don't need a plethora of units, that could be trimmed down but good luck facing the backlash after doing that.
Marines were OK until they made all the extra add on codexes (was not necessary), but still need to keep BA, DA and SW separate due to kits. You could I guess combine the latter 3 into one book I suppose, just as you could combine Grey Knights and Deathwatch.
Now, you could contain many of the factions into one book, but what does that achieve except for it being a much larger book?
The major problem is when you have spent so much time expanding the universe onto the tabletop, it's hard to go backwards without pissing off the villagers.
I'm on the fence with Harlequins (and I have a decent sized Harlie army), I love the concept, the miniatures, the rules (their masques, WTs, strats and relics are better than any of the other Aeldari forces) but they lack the units of a full force.
Why exactly is it a terrible idea? The game is saturated with power armor. Cut some if out. Start with the most Mary Sue.
Neither DW nor GK should have existed to being with, imo.
They SHOULD exist, just not the way that GW is doing them. Cut out the stuff we don't need (Deathwatch don't need Primaris outside maybe as an add on to regular squads, Grey Knights don't need a bunch of fliers, etc), combine them with Sisters and what we have of the Inquisition. It would still be a smaller codex than the main Marine one, and I already have ways to cut on that too.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think they should exist. Marines are already shameless mary sues. Now we have the EVER MOAR elite Mary Sues. Marines already are stupid rare.
Under the same logic, Scions shouldn't exist because they're just more Elite versions of Vets, which are more elite versions of Infantry, which are more elite versions of Conscripts.
No. Not at all. False equivalence. The base of infantry is far larger and far different in nature than mary sue spess mahreens. In fact, the guard is where this kind of stratification is appropriate. Marines already live eat and drink war. There's nowhere to go.
Martel732 wrote: No. Not at all. False equivalence. The base of infantry is far larger and far different in nature than mary sue spess mahreens. In fact, the guard is where this kind of stratification is appropriate. Marines already live eat and drink war. There's nowhere to go.
It really isn't a false equivalence. Deathwatch are the equivalent of Scions for Marine elites and Imperial Guard Vets. You can argue against it all you want, you'd just be dumb to do so. Grey Knights were the fighting force of Malleus Inquisitors, and were specialized in what they do. Ergo, they make sense.
It doesn't mean GW handled them very well (that certainly doesn't happen often), but here we are. Cutting down on unneeded options, and consolidation of unit entries would help. Primaris just being add-ons for example to Killteams makes a lot of sense.
As a newly converted Harlequin player, I'm glad I don't have to fork out £25 for what will probably be a few pages of new rules, at best.
Only thing one desires of the faction is a proper heavy unit - something with decent range and punch. Maybe a Death Jester variant with a proper missile launcher.
SamusDrake wrote: As a newly converted Harlequin player, I'm glad I don't have to fork out £25 for what will probably be a few pages of new rules, at best.
Only thing one desires of the faction is a proper heavy unit - something with decent range and punch. Maybe a Death Jester variant with a proper missile launcher.
I've said it once and I'll say it again - they've always described horrible, nightmarish constructs as well as Harlequins guarding the Black Library. If that's not a goldmine for a seriously F'ed up looking wraithbone clown monster, I don't know what is.
Martel732 wrote: No. Not at all. False equivalence. The base of infantry is far larger and far different in nature than mary sue spess mahreens. In fact, the guard is where this kind of stratification is appropriate. Marines already live eat and drink war. There's nowhere to go.
It really isn't a false equivalence. Deathwatch are the equivalent of Scions for Marine elites and Imperial Guard Vets. You can argue against it all you want, you'd just be dumb to do so. Grey Knights were the fighting force of Malleus Inquisitors, and were specialized in what they do. Ergo, they make sense.
It doesn't mean GW handled them very well (that certainly doesn't happen often), but here we are. Cutting down on unneeded options, and consolidation of unit entries would help. Primaris just being add-ons for example to Killteams makes a lot of sense.
Then I'm dumb. Because I think DW and GK are beyond absurd and unnecessary factions. I don't care about the details, really. It's all about MOAR elite. Marines are already so insanely rare that they should be the rarest forces. And they are already so rare that they don't matter.
And it's absolutely a false equivalence given the numbers of marines that GW claims and the numbers of guardsmen.
Martel732 wrote: No. Not at all. False equivalence. The base of infantry is far larger and far different in nature than mary sue spess mahreens. In fact, the guard is where this kind of stratification is appropriate. Marines already live eat and drink war. There's nowhere to go.
It really isn't a false equivalence. Deathwatch are the equivalent of Scions for Marine elites and Imperial Guard Vets. You can argue against it all you want, you'd just be dumb to do so. Grey Knights were the fighting force of Malleus Inquisitors, and were specialized in what they do. Ergo, they make sense.
It doesn't mean GW handled them very well (that certainly doesn't happen often), but here we are. Cutting down on unneeded options, and consolidation of unit entries would help. Primaris just being add-ons for example to Killteams makes a lot of sense.
Then I'm dumb. Because I think DW and GK are beyond absurd and unnecessary factions. I don't care about the details, really. It's all about MOAR elite. Marines are already so insanely rare that they should be the rarest forces. And they are already so rare that they don't matter.
And it's absolutely a false equivalence given the numbers of marines that GW claims and the numbers of guardsmen.
It's about function and rank, not about numbers. Therefore it is not a false equivalence. Sorry but you lost. Plus as I already said, there's some easy streamlining that can be done. For example, Deathwatch Vanguard are their own unit that can take Inceptors as an add-on for example.
Then I'm dumb. Because I think DW and GK are beyond absurd and unnecessary factions. I don't care about the details, really. It's all about MOAR elite. Marines are already so insanely rare that they should be the rarest forces. And they are already so rare that they don't matter.
And it's absolutely a false equivalence given the numbers of marines that GW claims and the numbers of guardsmen.
Why and how do fictional numbers matter in that?
If GW retconned the 40K universe so that there're a Billion Grey Knights on each planet and only 100 Guardsmen exist in the entire galaxy, would that change anything?
Whether an army is "elite" in the entirely made up stuff in the front pages before the datasheets and stratagems and all that or whether they are the most numerous thing ever is completely irrelevant to both the game play and the logistics and logic of sales/business.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
7 out of 10 people play space marines because GW pushes space marines down everyone's throats. Their entire marketing plan revolves around getting people who want to start out the hobby to get space marines. Want to get into the hobby and not sure where to start? Here are a million starter boxes that all feature space marines. New to the hobby? Don't worry these are all easy to build don't even need glue really just cut and snap. Want an easy to build/paint army? Here are a million videos showing you how to build/paint/convert space marines. Want an easy to play army? Here are some of the best and easiest to use rules in the game for space marines.
Now that 70% of your player base owns one faction if you want a quick cash grab release something for that faction. That is the reason space marines get so many releases. GW is not stupid.
Martel is angry and upset that the blood angels aren't an OP uber winning army but he's too invested to justify changing so he wants marines all squatted so he can justify changing his army.
........ the idea of just e-baying the damned thing seems to have escaped him.
Thats funny because Blood Angels are one of the best armies right now lol.
That's not why I think they are dumb. Winning has become almost irrelevant now. I think I'd rather lose every game than ever execute a tripoint ever again.
I've considered trashing them before. Ebay is too good for them. 80% of my stuff is from 5th. 6 preds, 6 razors, etc. All trash now.
Martel732 wrote: That's not why I think they are dumb. Winning has become almost irrelevant now. I think I'd rather lose every game than ever execute a tripoint ever again.
I've considered trashing them before. Ebay is too good for them.
"GW is not stupid."
Well, they are. Just not in this way.
yeah god forbid making money and giving someone who likes the army a way to get more mini's. Martel. it's become clearer and clearer to me that you just don't like 40k anymore, why not find a game that appeals to you? instead of bitching whining and moaning about a game you clearly dislike.
Martel732 wrote: That's not why I think they are dumb. Winning has become almost irrelevant now. I think I'd rather lose every game than ever execute a tripoint ever again.
I've considered trashing them before. Ebay is too good for them. 80% of my stuff is from 5th. 6 preds, 6 razors, etc. All trash now.
"GW is not stupid."
Well, they are. Just not in this way.
So because you hate the current state of 40k, nobody else should ever be remotely happy with the things they like?
Martel732 wrote: That's not why I think they are dumb. Winning has become almost irrelevant now. I think I'd rather lose every game than ever execute a tripoint ever again.
I've considered trashing them before. Ebay is too good for them. 80% of my stuff is from 5th. 6 preds, 6 razors, etc. All trash now.
"GW is not stupid."
Well, they are. Just not in this way.
So because you hate the current state of 40k, nobody else should ever be remotely happy with the things they like?
That makes a whole lot of sense.
I mean, to be fair, there's so much that needs to be fixed that just accepting the game as is would be pretty lame.
I mean, to be fair, there's so much that needs to be fixed that just accepting the game as is would be pretty lame.
Everyone has bones to pick with the ruleset. There's a massive difference between enjoying the overall experience of playing the game despite those bones, and hating it so much that you try to deny the enjoyment others derive from 40k (while somehow still claiming to be an active player).
Narrative should have fully fleshed out armies as we have now. For matched play and competitive, sure, consolidate the heck out of all the books, less book keeping to do.
As much as marines need to be on the chopping block, I have a whole list of others that could go too.
Cut GSC, give them a few units in a nids book. Roll all Aeldari into one. Cut Tau. Cut admech. Cut Necrons. Cut Knights and Custodes. Chaos all in one book, fewer options. How we doing Martel, Slayer? Getting close to what you want?
Good faith arguments abound. The game could use consolidation. That doesn't mean axing entire lines. Making paint colors equal free rules buffs has created an impossible mess to balance.
Martel732 wrote: That's not why I think they are dumb. Winning has become almost irrelevant now. I think I'd rather lose every game than ever execute a tripoint ever again.
I've considered trashing them before. Ebay is too good for them. 80% of my stuff is from 5th. 6 preds, 6 razors, etc. All trash now.
"GW is not stupid."
Well, they are. Just not in this way.
So because you hate the current state of 40k, nobody else should ever be remotely happy with the things they like?
That makes a whole lot of sense.
I never said that. Not even close. I said I'd rather lose games than tripoint.
Oh, yes that. Yes, I think some armies need the axe. GW didn't seem to care too much about that argument with Bretonnians, now did they? And they made more sense than GK or DW.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, yes that. Yes, I think some armies need the axe. GW didn't seem to care too much about that argument with Bretonnians, now did they? And they made more sense than GK or DW.
And you're right back to telling people they're not allowed to have fun. Well done.
Martel732 wrote: They can have fun. Just not with GK or DW. Ideally.
"If I cant have fun, then no one can". That's basically what you're saying. If their inclusion is so offensive to you......dont waste time/energy/thought on them.
Hell, I hate the Tau but I'm not advocating their deletion.
Get off of you high horse and just understand that not everyone has the same motivations/desires as you do. Go piss in your own cornflakes instead of others.
It's not like GW actually going to do this. It's just what I would do.
I'm not having fun because of the rules. These factions are just additional aggravation. I'm so sick of power armor across the table. Especially MOAR ELITE THAN SPESS MAHREEENS mary sue power armor.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they were part of it. They shouldn't have been. They are a stupid concept. Well, stupider than normal for GW.
So you enjoyed the narrow bit of fluff you read in 1994, decided the rest was stupid and cursed the rest?
You'd be surprised how many people have done exactly that. Or maybe not. It's a pretty common occurrence though.
BrianDavion wrote: Martel. it's become clearer and clearer to me that you just don't like 40k anymore, why not find a game that appeals to you? instead of bitching whining and moaning about a game you clearly dislike.
Well, that would be the sensible thing.
Quitting a game you don't like isn't some kind of failure or mark of shame or anything. It's good for one's mental health, to remove stress and strain. Plus, as well as potentially giving a little bit of cash back, you now have more free space and time that you can spend on literally anything else.
That's meant as no insult or jab. Just a suggestion.
Martel732 wrote:They can have fun. Just not with GK or DW. Ideally.
What a sociopathic take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It's not like GW actually going to do this. It's just what I would do.
I'm not having fun because of the rules. These factions are just additional aggravation. I'm so sick of power armor across the table.
You mean any power armour that isn't yours?
If people like those power armoured factions, that's none of your business. Getting rid of some won't change that people like power armour. You'll just drive those people to playing other kinds of power armour.
"If people like those power armoured factions, that's none of your business."
It kind of is, because I'm the one those ludicrous factions are inflicted upon.
Selling now would be a terrible idea. After quarantine, maybe. I feel bad selling people garbage units though. My 5th ed stuff should really just be trashed.
As for my power armor, i've advocated that gw should have had nids eliminate ba as a faction.
Martel732 wrote: "If people like those power armoured factions, that's none of your business."
It kind of is, because I'm the one those ludicrous factions are inflicted upon.
Boo hoo? What, you're going to dictate what factions other people should play?
By all means, decline games against factions you don't like, that is your right - but if your reasoning is "I hate power armour even though I collect a power armoured faction other people should play what I demand them to", let's just say I'd be glad I wasn't playing you.
I feel bad selling people garbage units though.
If they're happy to buy it, that's not really a problem. Many people are happy to buy units/factions that might not be competitive. If I was still collecting pre-Primaris units, price depending, I'd be interested.
My 5th ed stuff should really just be trashed.
Easier than just donating it away for free? If you insist.
Martel732 wrote: They can have fun. Just not with GK or DW. Ideally.
"If I cant have fun, then no one can". That's basically what you're saying. If their inclusion is so offensive to you......dont waste time/energy/thought on them.
Hell, I hate the Tau but I'm not advocating their deletion.
Get off of you high horse and just understand that not everyone has the same motivations/desires as you do. Go piss in your own cornflakes instead of others.
So don’t lump me into ... whatever ridiculous thing Martel is advocating for. I’m not about to suggest that we nix Grey Knights ... did he say he wanted to trash his models because eBay was too good for them?
So, I would say one thing—the Faction Bloat going on in the game DOES hurt players in two important ways:
1. Releases for army updates and faction extras etc. end up getting pushed back as part of a release cycle that gets longer and longer. Pre-8th, remember when people had to wait years (like, nearly a decade) for their turn at a Codex Update? And then during 8th, remember when factions had to wait years (1 to 2) to get their Codex update from the Index?
I’m not saying axe existing factions (though I do think they should start cutting down on Xenos releases if the game is going to just become SM v. CSM. Necrons clearly have no role in the new story line, for example), but let’s pump the breaks on adding Factions IF the player base expectation is going to demand that they then get added to the Codex/update release cycle at the same priority as fleshed out factions.
2. The game complexity is clearly growing beyond GW’s investment willingness to compensate for. The super doctrines prove this. The more minor variations you add on with slightly different Factions that are all cross-compatible with each other... the more likely it is you end up with unkillable units masterblasting the tabletop clear of any and all non-mirror threats all because you couldn’t keep track of that one minor interaction of a model in a limited production run (Forgeworld) in a heretofore underplayed Faction.
And IF GW were to invest in that much higher threshold of interaction tracking then that means fewer available £ for design and development of new rules and models of existing factions (which themselves would have used that interaction tracking investment instead).
And if I were to add a third item, it would be this:
3. We all complain about having to bring 6 to 7 rulebook with us just to play a game. More and more subfactions and sidefactions and superfactions just add to that burden. I don’t think this (3) is very compelling, though, because even as a Necron player I still have to bring at least 3 books with me just to play a game.
Martel732 wrote:Who the feth is gonna use a razorback now? Seriously.
Me? If I was still adding to my Battle Company, I'd be interested. Are the turrets glued on?
I dont demand anything. I will however call a faction stupid as feth. The gw store guy loves it when i do that.
I'm sure you win all the popularity awards. Again, I love the irony of a Space Marine player complaining about too many Space Marines. Jump on the bandwagon, and then complain when everyone else does too, I guess?
EDIT: And, just for clarity, like sieGermans, I do actually support consolidating factions (that doesn't mean I support getting rid of any!) - I don't see an issue with multiple factions being in the same book, so long as they are related in some fashion. So, for example, Grey Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, and Deathwatch, etc should all be in one "Agents of the Imperium" book. They should still get all their own units, and keywords should still be in play to encourage all-Custodes or all-Grey Knight lists, but put all the units in one place. Similarly to non-specialist Space Marines (ie, everything except Deathwatch and Grey Knights), should all be in one book, with **optional** supplements if you feel you want to specialise (aka, if you want your Dark Angels to have their fancy units, your Imperial Fists to feel more Imperially Fisty, etc). All Eldar/Dark Eldar/Harlequins should all be in one Codex, as should Tyranids and Genestealer Cult with their own. Have Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons link together. Have Knights and Guardsmen (as separate Codexes) with a variety of factions they can have keywords for (ie, options to be <Imperium>, <Chaos>, <Tau> and <Genestealer Cult> ). Then, for Necrons, Orks, Tau, Sisters, Mechanicus, and those factions, let them stay as full Codexes.
Sure, you'll have some big chunky Codexes. But, at least they'll be updated together. It's actually what I liked a lot about the Indexes - that one book could cover multiple related factions.
Martel732 wrote: It is ironic, but marines were pretty uncommon in my area in 2nd when i started. I dont care to be popular with gk or sw players.
Call it ridiculous, but gw has done it for more arbitrary reasons.
So, because you don't like the army other people play, that's your excuse to treat them like garbage?
What a charmer.
I believe the term is self entitled holier than thou I know better and cant change my mind. if you're having such a problem them, dont play them. I've never even seen/played against either GK or DW locally, how prevalent are they in Martels area? every other player? every player? or is it just that you dont like them and that is justification enough?
There is more players using Harlequins (sure 70% or so are allies to CWE/DE) compare to GSC (going by numbers from tournaments, so locally might be different).
But yet GSC got extra releases and a real PA. But Harlequins didnt.
Yes harlequins are a smaller army and yes there is less mono quin players, but thats also part of GW's fault.
GW just didn't want o throw quins a bone or promote them. As a quin player i am very pissed off.
Daemons should be split - each god should get their own 'dex like AoS.
CSM should be split - each founding legion should get their own 'dex, plus the notable post-Heresy. Just like SM40k.
Tau should be split - each founding Sept should get their own supplement/minidex, plus the notable post-rising like Farsight. Just like SM40k.
Etc.
There's just not that much content for some of these (Tau in particular), a lot would have to be made of doctrinal differences more suited to a skirmish game or RPG than 40k (as happens with Space Marines) to justify it or they're going to have to get increasingly weirdly differentiated (as has also happened with SM's) for their own sake, while keeping track of and updating that many rules sources (not to mention trying to buy them all) would be increasingly unfeasible. There's also no model support for many subfactions, particularly for stuff like Craftworlds, DE, Tau, Necrons, etc which is the prime motivator for those sub-books, as most of these factions were made just to be different color schemes and background ideas for different force compositions.
Within the timespan of a single edition, there's also just not enough marketing pipeline unless GW crowds release windows to several a month.
(joking but the 
But I do agree that just because they can make more books doesn't mean it works out well - sometimes ideas work best as niche.s
. You can do your elite airborne commando lists, you can do infantry hordes, you can do tank companies with scoring battle tanks, etc ad nauseum and all with a gazillion special rules for different flavors. You can represent a far wider array of forces, with substantially more divergent backgrounds, using the 
