Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:03:04


Post by: grouchoben


I'm a 40k player and an Infinity player; those are my two favourite games, and I don't have much time for any other wargames. Let me give you some perspective on how GW treats its customers in terms of information.

Infinity is about to launch a new edition, N4, which is an eagerly awaited revision and polishing of a deep, complex and excellent ruleset. As part of this launch they've been releasing videos where they discuss the new edition, but also their release schedule, plans for new models, and long-term goals for faction revamps. While they're not completely open, they provide enough information for fans of a certain faction to have something to look forward to. So eg 'Shasvaasti', an awesome sneaky alien faction, have been getting a SHEDLOAD of new releases, almost unprecedented in Infinity's history, and this release might have a player of another faction, such as 'Corregidor', a bit miffed because their old models really really need an update. But wait! The company has told me that Corregidor will be getting a major overhaul in 2021, and shown a few images and profiles of a taste of their new stuff. I now, as a Corregidor player, can stomach the endless Shasvaasti love, safe in the knowledge that in 12-18 months time it will be my faction's time in the sun.

Now let's look at 40k. Space marines have had more new models in the past three years than nearly any other faction has had in the total span of its existence in the game. Their rules are extreme, their competitveness only challenged by a few other entries in a few other codexes. A large proportion of the community is in despair at the unending release cycle for marines, both in terms of new powerful rules, and new models taking up all the attention of their design team. The problem is exarcebated by the fact that many of the game's factions are just subfactions of marines, leading to a real case of marine fatigue, even among marine players. It just seems unending, and completely tone deaf, as if the company has lost all sense of balance, leading to the common refrain that non-marine players are just supposed to be 'NPCs'. Just when you think they've reached a plateau (say, a new entire range of marines in phobos), it kicks on again with another 15 new units. And another 10. Accompanied by a Codex. And another. And another...

There is no end in sight, not because GW will never develop another faction again (of course they will!) but because they point blank refuse to inform their customers of when that will be. Their grip on information borders on paranoia, and customers that have spent thousands of pounds on other factions are subsequently left feeling forlorn, with ancient tiny models and rules that haven't seen much change for years and little hope for change. This is not a necessary feature of a design cycle: it is a decision that GW has made, and I believe it is one that is costing them dearly in terms of community good will, if not yet in terms of profit.

(This approach to information is one half of their structural problem - the other being their addiction to hardback income, and the terrible affect that has upon game design, balance and adjustment, but that's a story for another thread.) So what do you think? Would it make a difference to you, as an eldar player for example, if you knew that Summer 2021 was going to see a large revamp of your faction, and you got to see some sketches and early designs to whet your appetite?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:19:43


Post by: ccs


 grouchoben wrote:
So what do you think? Would it make a difference to you, as an eldar player for example, if you knew that Summer 2021 was going to see a large revamp of your faction, and you got to see some sketches and early designs to whet your appetite?


Not really. I mean, I like seeing previews of new models, sure. But I've been playing GW games long enough to know that non-marine stuff will come out. Likewise I've got better things to do than fret & rant about them not playing show & tell.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:23:44


Post by: JohnnyHell


Need to change? Their sales and share price disagree.

You’d prefer them to change? That’s the truth of it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:37:20


Post by: grouchoben


Yeah you're right Johnny. I'd prefer them to. Would you? Would we all? What do they benefit from their current stazi-level of information control, is the question, and is it worth the barrels of salt that are currently building up in the community?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:44:54


Post by: Slipspace


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Need to change? Their sales and share price disagree.

You’d prefer them to change? That’s the truth of it.


Well, there you go folks, no need to make any changes ever at GW now, after all they're making good profits so clearly they're not doing anything wrong and everything is perfect.

Sarcasm aside, the OP has a very good point. The biggest problem is probably more to do with the sheer number of Marine factions, which means they take up more of the release schedule than other armies because roughly half the factions in the game are power armour dudes because GW seems to want to treat Salamander and UM like their own faction while not really doing the same for Iyanden, or Novokh, for example. Just like the OP compares to Infinity I can compare the way information is revealed with X-Wing (and FFG in general). Release dates are often a little sketchy but that's because new info is revealed well in advance with an initial preview, then a more detailed preview happens about 4-6 weeks prior to release. That detailed preview talks about almost all the rules, with full details of them. Additionally, they do live streams with the developers where they show an actual understanding of their own system and the nuances of how their rules function. They also talk openly about why they make the decisions they do when it comes to the points updates they do every 6 months. All that helps to build confidence among the players that the devs are competent.

GW, in contrast, constantly show a lack of understanding of their own system. Just this weekend they mentioned the great combination of Ophydian Destroyers getting to re-roll their Deep Strike charges thanks to the Chronomancer's special rules. Which doesn't work because of the timing of the two rules, which is an issue with a lot of similar rules so it's hardly a niche interaction. Add in the ham-fisted 9th edition points updates and the overall feeling is not one of confidence in the GW designer's abilities to understand their own system. I think changing their approach in this area would be a net gain for GW. Even at the weekend they probably should have recognised that announcing 4 new Codices/supplements all of which were SM would not go down well. Even just a simple announcement of which Xenos Codex is next with maybe a sneak preview of one model/unit would have gone a long way to appeasing people. In this aspect of promotion and marketing it feels like GW are stuck in the 80s/90s model of telling people how great things are without crediting them with intelligence of their own. It's a pretty outdated view of how to do marketing.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:54:35


Post by: Karol


I think that GW may risk some people their games for good. It is one thing to wait for the next FAQ or CA, and have a hope that maybe next updated codex is yours and be told that GW plans to update your faction in 2 plus years times. Now some people may switch an army, while waiting, or change from w40k to AoS. But there is also a bunch of people who will leave. Specialy if GW botched your codex, and new models come only with a new one. The known prospect of a 2 plus year wait would not be a nice thing, specialy for a new player who hasn't played for decades.

GW clearly knows what they are doing buisness wise, as they seem to be getting bigger and bigger. The games may often be unfun for parts of their fandoms, but having a good game doesn't seem to be GW goal, or at least not a main goal.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 10:55:40


Post by: Overread


Right now GW tends to operate in a 3month or so bracket of releases in preview for their core games. This works out about right because it means that, barring world wide epidemics, what they preview comes when they say it will and it looks how they show it. This is because at 3months basically everything is done design wise and its more about production of mass material and shipping it around the world ready for release. Even then hiccups can happen, but its rare.


The result is we get not just a preview, but a reliable preview of what is to come.



For their specialist games GW is adopting a 3 or so preview window roadmap. We can see this with Necromunda where we know the next three or four releases coming up in a rough term. This isn't as precise, but gives us a rough part of the year when a faction should get a release of some kind. This works for those games because they aren't getting content every week nor even always every month.



GW has to balance the desire to show stuff coming out against release plans and production and a million other things. There are likely many projects that are dead certain to arrive in a year, which then get shelved or delayed for long periods of time.




If you look at the old Spartan Games they used to do loads of previews and upcoming releases quite a good chunk of time in advance. Then when issues came up they'd slip on dates, cancel releases; move things around and in general the community got very sour about it. They couldn't "trust" the marketing. Even if it was just a date slip.

GW wants you to trust their marketing, that when they say X will happen on Y date then its going to happen.







I do think that their secrecy has issues, but its more internal issues. Keeping releases hidden from other departments or departments not talking to each other as well as they should. We got a big dose of that when AoS was released; however I think the new management at GW is changing those attitudes.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 11:03:46


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
I think that GW may risk some people their games for good. It is one thing to wait for the next FAQ or CA, and have a hope that maybe next updated codex is yours and be told that GW plans to update your faction in 2 plus years times. Now some people may switch an army, while waiting, or change from w40k to AoS. But there is also a bunch of people who will leave. Specialy if GW botched your codex, and new models come only with a new one. The known prospect of a 2 plus year wait would not be a nice thing, specialy for a new player who hasn't played for decades.

GW clearly knows what they are doing buisness wise, as they seem to be getting bigger and bigger. The games may often be unfun for parts of their fandoms, but having a good game doesn't seem to be GW goal, or at least not a main goal.


The main goal of any company is not to make a good quality thing.

It is to make the most profitable thing.

Think about the most profitable movie, the most profitable music, the most profitable food, the most profitable coffee, the most profitable video game....

and be honest to yourself, even if you like this thing: Is it the BEST thing out there? Is it the BEST QUALITY thing?

but it is the most profitable.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 11:34:55


Post by: Sentineil


As much as I'd love to know what was in the pipeline, you just have to look at the reaction to how any GW deadline slips to understand that it's not in their best interest to tease anything until they have it fully locked down.

What Infinity is doing is definitely great, but I'm not sure people here will respond as well to it. Especially when they see what ever is in the Marine WIP pile!

From a business perspective it can also damage sales too. I'm less likely to invest in a new army if I know mine is due an overhaul in 8 months.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 11:45:04


Post by: grouchoben


Yeah I agree with a lot of this discussion so far - there's a plausible case that there is a tension between GW's profit motive and corporate best-practice, and what their community of players would actually like to see in the game. But in this instance I actually think the two ends need not compete, just that GW need to shift gears in terms of their interaction with their community.

A move away from the "gotcha!" big reveal and towards a more respectful, mature style of marketing would do the community a world of good - Like Infinity's Corvus Belli or X-Wing's FFG as Slipspace pointed out. Involve us in things a bit more - this wouldn't mean specific dates would have to be given, and if things had to shuffle, we could hear that too. I'd love to hear from the designers on what they're working on, see renders and sketches and webcasts discussing how they want to realise the lore or older style of a unit in its new iteration.

I also think it would help GW internally to be more 'honest' - transparency means you have consider how your plans look to your customers. The current imbalance of releases would have been a bit harder to greenlight, when you had to explain it. Really, GW has a chance to cement its place at the top of the tree, and that will involve changing how they do things a little. They need to move into the 21st century in how they deal with information: this is the age of information and theyre currently operating with a 20th century model of how they share, produce and distribute the information that is the lifeblood of their business.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 11:57:49


Post by: BaconCatBug


It's almost as if the "fanbase" is reinforcing bad habits by showering them with cash despite their bad behaviour.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:04:30


Post by: Kanluwen


It's always funny that people hold up Corvus Belli as an example of some kind of 'open' company.

Yes, you've been told that Corregidor will be getting a rework in 2021...you have not been told what will get reworked nor how the rework will happen. We know Wildcats are getting an overhaul as a unit and new sculpts, but guess how you have to find out how the models are supposedly coming out?
Third-party podcasts that are basically nothing but mouthpieces for CB's company line. Because Corregidor is supposed to be coming with a new 2P box where it will be locked with the Ariadnan "Kosmoflot" Sectorial starter according to Bostria on a podcast.


What you're wanting is something that GW literally did with the Sisters of Battle. They had a whole thing where they showed off renders...and people complained about it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:05:45


Post by: Bosskelot


I completely agree. The MCU announces stuff years in advance and shows off their roadmap for upcoming releases that goes on for like 3-4 years. They obviously don't reveal exact details on everything but their method only increases hype and gets people to look forward to things even more.

However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole. The level of backlash against Marines right now is far beyond anything I've ever seen in this hobby and I've certainly seen its ripple effects in my IRL 40k experiences, but GW profits keep on soaring and the Primaris line continues to carry the rest of the company on its back. As of now, the GW model seems to work but I don't think the backlash and uncertainty you're seeing is enough for them to do anything like what has been suggested here*. If numbers of people actually playing the game collapses and results in legitimate loss of sales then maybe something will happen, otherwise they have no reason to change anything.

*They are however very aware of it and that's why I think on one of the other previews they showed off a Necron model with no corresponding Marine model, and how Saturday's preview started with the Necrons. Even on Saturday I think Adam Troke had gotten some marching orders from higher up to be a little more enthusiastic about non-Marine stuff and less dismissive and ignorant about Necron things.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:06:22


Post by: Kanluwen


 Sentineil wrote:
As much as I'd love to know what was in the pipeline, you just have to look at the reaction to how any GW deadline slips to understand that it's not in their best interest to tease anything until they have it fully locked down.

What Infinity is doing is definitely great, but I'm not sure people here will respond as well to it. Especially when they see what ever is in the Marine WIP pile!

From a business perspective it can also damage sales too. I'm less likely to invest in a new army if I know mine is due an overhaul in 8 months.

Really tired of people holding up CB as some kind of exemplar. They're not.

We still don't know when Merovingia is coming back. Still don't know when Shock Army is coming back. Don't know when NCA is coming back. They refuse to adapt their boxes to actually address SKU bloat and their next 2P box is the trashiest lore breaking thing yet and that's just based off of the dang proposed factions(Nomads and Ariadna).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Bosskelot wrote:

*They are however very aware of it and that's why I think on one of the other previews they showed off a Necron model with no corresponding Marine model, and how Saturday's preview started with the Necrons. Even on Saturday I think Adam Troke had gotten some marching orders from higher up to be a little more enthusiastic about non-Marine stuff and less dismissive and ignorant about Necron things.

This is the kind of thing that is just ridiculous to say.

Adam Troke has been pretty excited about everything. Him being excited about Marines is because he's a well-known Dark Angels player. His armies have been featured in years past for WD and codices both. His ignorance over Necrons is because he hasn't ever really played them--and he's said as much talking about things. Never struck me as him being "dismissive" of Necron things.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:17:23


Post by: Dudeface


 Bosskelot wrote:
I completely agree. The MCU announces stuff years in advance and shows off their roadmap for upcoming releases that goes on for like 3-4 years. They obviously don't reveal exact details on everything but their method only increases hype and gets people to look forward to things even more.

However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole. The level of backlash against Marines right now is far beyond anything I've ever seen in this hobby and I've certainly seen its ripple effects in my IRL 40k experiences, but GW profits keep on soaring and the Primaris line continues to carry the rest of the company on its back. As of now, the GW model seems to work but I don't think the backlash and uncertainty you're seeing is enough for them to do anything like what has been suggested here*. If numbers of people actually playing the game collapses and results in legitimate loss of sales then maybe something will happen, otherwise they have no reason to change anything.

*They are however very aware of it and that's why I think on one of the other previews they showed off a Necron model with no corresponding Marine model, and how Saturday's preview started with the Necrons. Even on Saturday I think Adam Troke had gotten some marching orders from higher up to be a little more enthusiastic about non-Marine stuff and less dismissive and ignorant about Necron things.


MCU releasing an iron man 4 (random made up example) doesn't reduce the value or replace my iron man 3 blu-ray though is the big difference. I don't withhold buying thor: ragnarok because love and thunder potentially replaces it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:24:25


Post by: the_scotsman


Dudeface wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
I completely agree. The MCU announces stuff years in advance and shows off their roadmap for upcoming releases that goes on for like 3-4 years. They obviously don't reveal exact details on everything but their method only increases hype and gets people to look forward to things even more.

However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole. The level of backlash against Marines right now is far beyond anything I've ever seen in this hobby and I've certainly seen its ripple effects in my IRL 40k experiences, but GW profits keep on soaring and the Primaris line continues to carry the rest of the company on its back. As of now, the GW model seems to work but I don't think the backlash and uncertainty you're seeing is enough for them to do anything like what has been suggested here*. If numbers of people actually playing the game collapses and results in legitimate loss of sales then maybe something will happen, otherwise they have no reason to change anything.

*They are however very aware of it and that's why I think on one of the other previews they showed off a Necron model with no corresponding Marine model, and how Saturday's preview started with the Necrons. Even on Saturday I think Adam Troke had gotten some marching orders from higher up to be a little more enthusiastic about non-Marine stuff and less dismissive and ignorant about Necron things.


MCU releasing an iron man 4 (random made up example) doesn't reduce the value or replace my iron man 3 blu-ray though is the big difference. I don't withhold buying thor: ragnarok because love and thunder potentially replaces it.


I mean, not that I disagree with you entirely but Infinity War definitely devalued my enjoyment of Thor Ragnarok


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:30:14


Post by: Bosskelot


Dudeface wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
I completely agree. The MCU announces stuff years in advance and shows off their roadmap for upcoming releases that goes on for like 3-4 years. They obviously don't reveal exact details on everything but their method only increases hype and gets people to look forward to things even more.

However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole. The level of backlash against Marines right now is far beyond anything I've ever seen in this hobby and I've certainly seen its ripple effects in my IRL 40k experiences, but GW profits keep on soaring and the Primaris line continues to carry the rest of the company on its back. As of now, the GW model seems to work but I don't think the backlash and uncertainty you're seeing is enough for them to do anything like what has been suggested here*. If numbers of people actually playing the game collapses and results in legitimate loss of sales then maybe something will happen, otherwise they have no reason to change anything.

*They are however very aware of it and that's why I think on one of the other previews they showed off a Necron model with no corresponding Marine model, and how Saturday's preview started with the Necrons. Even on Saturday I think Adam Troke had gotten some marching orders from higher up to be a little more enthusiastic about non-Marine stuff and less dismissive and ignorant about Necron things.


MCU releasing an iron man 4 (random made up example) doesn't reduce the value or replace my iron man 3 blu-ray though is the big difference. I don't withhold buying thor: ragnarok because love and thunder potentially replaces it.


Sure, but complete uncertainty basically stops any actual purchases because you have no idea if and when things will be replaced, or even if your selected faction will see proper support in terms of models. I know lots of Eldar players and people wanting to start the army that are basically buying nothing right now since they have no idea what is happening with the army, not just in terms of rules but in terms of model support too.

Kanluwen wrote:Adam Troke has been pretty excited about everything. Him being excited about Marines is because he's a well-known Dark Angels player. His armies have been featured in years past for WD and codices both. His ignorance over Necrons is because he hasn't ever really played them--and he's said as much talking about things. Never struck me as him being "dismissive" of Necron things.


It has to me and a few other people. Obviously he wouldn't do it out of spite, but for every other preview stream its been Eddie Eccles being the guy to actually be the hype man for the new Necron stuff. I only brought this up because I saw/heard a marked difference in Adam's presentation and demeanour for the new Necron stuff compared to previous streams.

Or maybe he just really digs plastic Flayed Ones and that's where it came from.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:32:02


Post by: grouchoben


"However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole."

That's a good point Bosskelot, but I can't help think that GW are getting a little worried about community reaction to the SM avalanche. As you said there's been a bit of self awareness in the recent media, and the animation with Cawl just pressing the primaris button to fix everything was a nice nod. Yes they're a big business and controversy can stoke sales to some degree, but public companies are also pretty anxious about wrong steps leading to loss of share price. I just hope there are voices in the company advocating for a change of approach to information in their games and releases...

I guess my thinking is that - while FFG and Corvus Belli aren't perfect by any means - they are examples of a better model of community interaction, and include their fans in their decision making to a much greater degree, and also don't paywall their rules, allowing them to be more reflexive in their balancing.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:35:50


Post by: Lammia


Just going to add, FFG's 'we aspire to have product available before you forget it was released' release method is not something to promote either.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:41:28


Post by: Slipspace


One other aspect, linked to what I mentioned earlier about FFG being more open with their releases and processes is the developers get a little more leeway from the community. Having a developer on a stream explaining the decisions behind the mechanics and points costs for different ships and upgrades allows them to be more honest when they screw up.

For example, in 1st edition 2-ship lists were really, really good, mainly because you could stack more upgrades on them but also because some big ships were undercosted. In 2nd edition they erred on the side of caution a little too much and made big ships too expensive across the board. However, by openly admitting they're aware of the issues, stating why they made the decisions they did and gradually working towards improving the relative balance between small and large ships, they don't really suffer from much community backlash.

That respect has to be earned though, and that's one area where I think GW could absolutely improve. Sadly, I suspect one reason they don't is because their designers don't actually think about the game as deeply as devs at other companies.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:45:02


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Their sales and share price disagree.
Just because you're doing well doesn't mean you can't do better.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:45:41


Post by: Polonius


 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost as if the "fanbase" is reinforcing bad habits by showering them with cash despite their bad behaviour.


Or... maybe realize that the fanbase is not synonymous with the overall market for GW products, and that the people actually buying product obviously like what they see.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Their sales and share price disagree.
Just because you're doing well doesn't mean you can't do better.


They've been the fastest growing stock in britain for like five years. They have a market cap in the Billions on a few million a year in revenue. By all accounts, they are literally making plastic as fast as they can. I'm not sure what they could be doing better.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:48:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


I think it would indeed improve the good will IF gw would be more open , atleast ruleswise and rules development wise.

That and an editor. Because come on, their new reveal datasheets allready are full with mistakes.

Also remember there have been 2 factions recently squatted, those players may very well now either sit in the rain and dark with their armies or have a rework coming around in a (somewhat timely manner).
That these players will be angry , comparatively , and are legitimately so, because not even " wait and See" works for them anymore , is an issue for their PR ,aswell as the lack of information.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:51:01


Post by: Grimtuff


Polonius wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Their sales and share price disagree.
Just because you're doing well doesn't mean you can't do better.


They've been the fastest growing stock in britain for like five years. They have a market cap in the Billions on a few million a year in revenue. By all accounts, they are literally making plastic as fast as they can. I'm not sure what they could be doing better.


Dropping the logical choice (making so many Marines ad nauseum, where they literally outnumber entire factions), and going with the more impactful choice of bringing other factions up to par.

The latter will not piss off your fans in the long run due to them making the mistake of daring to shell out their hard earned dosh for an NPC faction for little Timmy.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:54:11


Post by: Galas


Is true that GW is spamming space marines non stop. But they are also releasing more models for all other lines, games, and factions than ever before.


The truth is , compared with how things were 15-10 years ago, GW has pumped out their output of new stuff, models, games, etc... trought the roof. That means, we also have a more ton of marines, because if you have 10 marine releases an 4 non marine releases and you double it, you'll end up with 8 non marine releases but with 20 marine ones.

Is true that it can look like you receive nothing if you play a single warhammer 40k faction that isn't one of the big ones like Marines or Chaos. But thats a small sub-set of the player base.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 12:56:58


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 grouchoben wrote:
Infinity is about to launch a new edition, N4, which is an eagerly awaited revision and polishing of a deep, complex and excellent ruleset. As part of this launch they've been releasing videos where they discuss the new edition, but also their release schedule, plans for new models, and long-term goals for faction revamps. While they're not completely open, they provide enough information for fans of a certain faction to have something to look forward to. So eg 'Shasvaasti', an awesome sneaky alien faction, have been getting a SHEDLOAD of new releases, almost unprecedented in Infinity's history, and this release might have a player of another faction, such as 'Corregidor', a bit miffed because their old models really really need an update. But wait! The company has told me that Corregidor will be getting a major overhaul in 2021, and shown a few images and profiles of a taste of their new stuff. I now, as a Corregidor player, can stomach the endless Shasvaasti love, safe in the knowledge that in 12-18 months time it will be my faction's time in the sun.

Sure. If Infinity had been releasing their update schedule and that 2021 would be Corregidor getting 2 new models and Shasvaasti getting 30 new kits, would the openness about the release schedule make you feel better? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't.
So, you are quite missing the problem with GW...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:02:01


Post by: Not Online!!!


Actually it depends on the context hybrid.
If one side was a skelleton faction comparatively to the other then it would be a propper increase and make another possible oponent an more interesting experience.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:02:06


Post by: Jidmah


As I'm working for a company which behaves quite similar to GW, I believe the main drive behind all this secrecy revolving around release schedules is that when you release a schedule, people are going to hold you to it. They struggle to release promised FAQ documents on time, I highly doubt GW has the ability to plan far enough ahead to know what they are going to release in 6 months.

Remember how the entire community lost their mind when the spring FAQ was moved back by a month or when orktober was actually pre-orders on the last week of October? No one wants that every other week.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:04:08


Post by: grouchoben


Yeah fair enough Hybrid. But GW seem to be going with faction root & branch renovations rather than one or two models. DG, GSC, CSM and now Crons are the factions to have won the non-SM lottery so far. Players of other factions might feel a whole lot better if they knew that early 2021, late 2021, early 2022, etc were the slots for their faction's revamp. It would restore a lot of faith in the company I think from a lot of players who are wavering a little, that's all.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:05:13


Post by: Galas


 Jidmah wrote:
As I'm working for a company which behaves quite similar to GW, I believe the main drive behind all this secrecy revolving around release schedules is that when you release a schedule, people are going to hold you to it. They struggle to release promised FAQ documents on time, I highly doubt GW has the ability to plan far enough ahead to know what they are going to release in 6 months.

Remember how the entire community lost their mind when the spring FAQ was moved back by a month or when orktober was actually pre-orders on the last week of October? No one wants that every other week.




Also this. Work-related speaking, I have been burned for putting dates that became impossible to meet. I absolutely understand why many companies take the "Blizzard" approach.

"It will be released when it is ready"


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:13:17


Post by: Crispy78


 grouchoben wrote:
Yeah fair enough Hybrid. But GW seem to be going with faction root & branch renovations rather than one or two models. DG, GSC, CSM and now Crons are the factions to have won the non-SM lottery so far. Players of other factions might feel a whole lot better if they knew that early 2021, late 2021, early 2022, etc were the slots for their faction's revamp. It would restore a lot of faith in the company I think from a lot of players who are wavering a little, that's all.


I'm not 100% convinced, I think it's more likely it'd just kill sales of that faction stone dead until the revamp date.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:14:42


Post by: Not Online!!!


Crispy78 wrote:
 grouchoben wrote:
Yeah fair enough Hybrid. But GW seem to be going with faction root & branch renovations rather than one or two models. DG, GSC, CSM and now Crons are the factions to have won the non-SM lottery so far. Players of other factions might feel a whole lot better if they knew that early 2021, late 2021, early 2022, etc were the slots for their faction's revamp. It would restore a lot of faith in the company I think from a lot of players who are wavering a little, that's all.


I'm not 100% convinced, I think it's more likely it'd just kill sales of that faction stone dead until the revamp date.


it would gw force to spread out a bit more to maintain interest, something that isn't inherently bad technically speaking.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:14:56


Post by: Dysartes


Not Online!!! wrote:
That and an editor. Because come on, their new reveal datasheets allready are full with mistakes.


The irony here amuses the hell out of me.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:16:53


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Dysartes wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
That and an editor. Because come on, their new reveal datasheets allready are full with mistakes.


The irony here amuses the hell out of me.


You seem to like making fun of someone that has slight dyslexia and uses a non mother-tongue.
tell me, this is the second time, does it make you feel good or important?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:18:06


Post by: Tycho


If you think about it, the new GW approach is a significant improvement over the 6th/7th ed Kirby style of only finding out the week before somethign was going to come out (back when they had that awful weekly WD run).

The key to this though, lies in the company culture. Corvus Belli has always been more open and more engaged with the community. They seem to have a better grasp of what their players want, and it seems rare that they would ever, for example "Pull a Jervis" (chastising players for using legal but completely broken rules). They have a better understanding of how all of that works.

GW is a much more closed cutlure, and I've found over the years, that if you have that closed culture mentality, it's probably going to go very wrong if you try to change it up too fast. We know there are massive disconnects between the player base and the rules team, and we also know that a big chunk of the 40k base can be quite toxic. I think it probably works better for GW to keep how they are. It isn't hurting sales at all, and they have a MUCH bigger customer base than someone like Corvus Belli. Maybe in a few more years once they've gotten the hang of interacting with the public, but right now, while they've made great strides, I don't think they're ready and I don't see it going well. Just think about the comments currently when they preview yet another new Primaris thing. I don't see an open conversation going well.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:19:42


Post by: Daedalus81


 grouchoben wrote:
Yeah you're right Johnny. I'd prefer them to. Would you? Would we all? What do they benefit from their current stazi-level of information control, is the question, and is it worth the barrels of salt that are currently building up in the community?


Remember when we had no previews, ever and model releases quarterly? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

It's pretty ridiculous to call this stazi-level information control. We get previews frequently and often for stuff pretty far down the pipeline.

You want to stop the salt? Tell people to exercise some self control.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:21:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


"They're making lots of money, therefore there is literally no avenue or aspect of their business or business practices that can be changed, improved or otherwise upgraded."

You know who else makes lots of money? EA. Activision. Ubisoft. And they're a pack of witches.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:23:37


Post by: Tycho


You know who else makes lots of money? EA. Activision. Ubisoft. And they're a pack of witches.



In point of fact, they are struggling atm .... EA is actually in trouble with its major shareholders and recently had the Executive bonus clause re-examined and subsequently denied to its executive staff by the board while Ubisoft just completed a stint of studio closures.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:24:34


Post by: Galas


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"They're making lots of money, therefore there is literally no avenue or aspect of their business or business practices that can be changed, improved or otherwise upgraded."

You know who else makes lots of money? EA. Activision. Ubisoft. And they're a pack of witches.


Is more that people is acknowledging how GW has improved compared with just 5 years ago, and explaining why theres a couple of very good reasons in the eyes of the ones running the gears for not putting out release plans years in advance.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:34:44


Post by: Grimtuff


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"They're making lots of money, therefore there is literally no avenue or aspect of their business or business practices that can be changed, improved or otherwise upgraded."

You know who else makes lots of money? EA. Activision. Ubisoft. And they're a pack of witches.


"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"



Them mountains of SM datasheets that literally outnumber entire factions combined together are not healthy for the game long term. They might make them a lot of cashola short term but it is damaging and frankly demeaning to the long term players who have basically been told they are playing second fiddle for choosing the wrong army.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:35:46


Post by: Kanluwen


Tycho wrote:
If you think about it, the new GW approach is a significant improvement over the 6th/7th ed Kirby style of only finding out the week before somethign was going to come out (back when they had that awful weekly WD run).

The key to this though, lies in the company culture. Corvus Belli has always been more open and more engaged with the community. They seem to have a better grasp of what their players want, and it seems rare that they would ever, for example "Pull a Jervis" (chastising players for using legal but completely broken rules). They have a better understanding of how all of that works.

They literally do this every ITT season. They're currently pushing a "15 model cap" specifically because they claim that it isn't the Infinity way to play to have more...despite factions like Ariadna and Haqqislam being built around larger model pools.

And no, they haven't "been more open and more engaged with the community". They flatout lied in the lead-up to Icestorm, claiming that the Corregidor starter set was the "flagship item of a revised range"...and then promptly screwed their scale up within one single box release.
Then there's the whole nonsense about SKU bloat(which is their go-to move for when they just can't be bothered to update something) and their refusal to add extra parts to boxed sets to actually address SKU bloat...or exclusive models.

I could go on, but realistically? Corvus Belli is at the point where GW was in the early 2000s...just without actually being a publicly traded company so we can see their financials or anywhere near the brand recognition or production capabilities.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:40:25


Post by: Fluid_Fox


Think about how non SM players would feel about the game if GW had revealed a road map for the last two years. Yikes.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:41:56


Post by: grouchoben


Okay we get it Kanluwen, you have issues with CB. I don't want to derail the thread by addressing all of your points when they were just a counter-point to GW's business practice.

I'll just say that, for example, a lot of people in the community love the 15 order cap. Let's see how it affects the meta before going all apoplectic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Fluid_Fox wrote:
Think about how non SM players would feel about the game if GW had revealed a road map for the last two years. Yikes.


I think that's partly what I would see as a benefit of more transparency. They'd have to think how they'd present their release schedule a bit more, and that would be very very healthy for that schedule.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:55:36


Post by: Kanluwen


Your thread started off with throwing them up as some kind of shining paragon that GW should aspire to. Go ahead and try to refute my points. I've been involved with CB's stuff since 2E and I can tell you that while they might be an 'open' company, they are not player-friendly.

GW doing a roadmap for 40k or AoS isn't going to happen. Not after the nonsense you lot have been spewing after the Necromunda or FAQ roadmaps have been altered. There's too many moving parts when we're talking about things even pre-COVID.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:56:26


Post by: Tycho


And no, they haven't "been more open and more engaged with the community". They flatout lied in the lead-up to Icestorm, claiming that the Corregidor starter set was the "flagship item of a revised range"...and then promptly screwed their scale up within one single box release.
Then there's the whole nonsense about SKU bloat(which is their go-to move for when they just can't be bothered to update something) and their refusal to add extra parts to boxed sets to actually address SKU bloat...or exclusive models.

I could go on, but realistically? Corvus Belli is at the point where GW was in the early 2000s...just without actually being a publicly traded company so we can see their financials or anywhere near the brand recognition or production capabilities.




That's fair enough I suppose. I haven't followed them very closely for a while, but I remember when they first released Infinity, and some of the early-to-mid years where they really were more engaged. I figured that would have continued. I guess that's not as true of late though?

The other company that comes to mind here is Mongoose Publishing. I was part of their Mobile Infantry demo team and literally bought the first box of the truck when Starship Troopers was delivered. What I loved about MGP ... at first ... was how open they were. Matt Sprange would refularly be on the MGP forums talkign about plans and design philosophy etc. They would also regularly update eveyone on when things were coming etc. They would then do a yearly "State of the Mongoose" report. This was all fine and well when things were mostly good. The problem is, they got in over their heads very quickly. They started whiffing on release dates like you wouldn't believe, and began releasing items (both books and models) that were well below the industry standard at the time. So then the State of the Mongoose report started reading like a list of excuses "well, the dog ate our molds, space aliens abducted the designer, etc etc". Basically a long letter that said "It's not our fault". This went on for a few years before they ended up losing the SST license (as I recall it wasn't that the license was pulled so much as Hienlien's people wanted WAY too much money to renew it due to the rumors of Sony's upcoming SST 3). It looks like they actually stopped doing the year end address in 2018, but even after SST, so many of the letters read like "XYZ went sideways but it's not our fault and we've learned a lesson! In other news, BIG PLANS COMING!" Then, next year, the same thing ...

Too much of this really poisoned me on MGP. I think, had they been less open about the behind the scenes issues, I personally would have been way more open to giving them the benefit of the doubt - they were a small studio trying to do something really big and it got away from them a bit. It happens. But when it constantly became them missing on every promise and then underdelivering while blaming everyone else? Not so much. Had they been more closed and general about future plans, a lot of those issues become much smaller imo.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 13:59:53


Post by: alextroy


 grouchoben wrote:
I think that's partly what I would see as a benefit of more transparency. They'd have to think how they'd present their release schedule a bit more, and that would be very very healthy for that schedule.
I'm not so sure. If this forum is any measure of popular sentiment in the community (a rather big assumption), then the Sisters of Battle experiment proves that more transparency is not necessarily a good thing.

GW announces in early 2019 that the are producing a new line of Sisters of Battle for release in 2019 "Emperor Willing". Part of the fanbase is ecstatic, and part starts grumbling that they will never make the deadline.

GW provides regular updates/teasers about the upcoming range. Part of the fanbase enjoys the look inside, and part grumbles about not liking X, Y, and Z.

GW announces the release of a special Battle Box in November 2019. Part of the fanbase says "shut up and take my money" and part starts saying, "you liers, you promised the whole range!".

GW releases the first part of the range in January 2020. Part of the community starts buying, assembling and painting. And part of the community bitches for two months that the complete range isn't releases so they can't build their tournament army yet.

There is no winning for GW. If they are not perfect, so some people they are jerks who hate your hobby. So why invite more pain by providing more information for them to bitch about?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:03:03


Post by: BroodSpawn


Asking permission from the 'community' on what to release, then having to change and re-allocate resources or costs because some place like Dakka does not approve of what's on the roadmap for the next year?

Yeah that's a bad move.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:04:21


Post by: Argive


@ OP - Theres a reason I haven't started a secondary 40k army and instead have been buying odd models from Mierce and looking at infinity.. Obviously this is just me and anectodal but the 40k games around me have dried up for the whole 2 weeks our club re-opened...

Whats even worse is the self aware derpy posts and the rabid fanboys relishing gleefully enjoying the salt... I guess the master + master race relationship keeps the ship afloat...

I've had a squad of failcast Dark Reapers sitting on my paint desk for a week now and I just cant get the motivation to put more paint on such a sup par product.. Been procrastinating...
So yeah a road map is the professional thing to do and for people with that mindset, and would help with motivation & budgeting IMO. If I knew there was more stuff coming in 9 months I might just buy that FW Cobra/ wraithknight and over the next 9 months plus more crap and even start a second army... But I might as well buy some creature caster demon or mierce dragon coz not interested in marines.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:06:12


Post by: Fluid_Fox


Experience tells me they'd either just half ass it to save face, or pretend they didn't hear it. This is a trajectory GW has been on for a long, long time.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:08:56


Post by: Slipspace


 Kanluwen wrote:
Your thread started off with throwing them up as some kind of shining paragon that GW should aspire to. Go ahead and try to refute my points. I've been involved with CB's stuff since 2E and I can tell you that while they might be an 'open' company, they are not player-friendly.


FWIW, I have no real knowledge of how CB engage with the community but I took the OP as more of a general statement about the kind of direction they'd prefer GW to go in, perhaps with an imperfect example, not a forensic comparison of GW with CB. I think you're somewhat missing the forest for the trees here.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:24:47


Post by: stroller


"Desperately need to..." seems a little strong.

Space Marines have always been the poster boys, and have always (I believe) had most and most frequent releases, because that's where the money is.

There IS a marketing and information flow. It ain't perfect, and some of it ain't relevant to me, but they are getting their message out there.

Sure I'd like my xenos to have more shiny toys (noooo, my painting backlog...) but I remember waiting 12 years for dark eldar updates, and loving most when they DID arrive. I still fielded my army, though I accept they'd have been hammered in a tournament - but - tournaments are irrelevant to ME (side thought - how many GW buyers? players? tournament players).

Relax. The other buses will be along. Eventually. Probably. Enjoy what you HAVE.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:37:04


Post by: Umbros


 Fluid_Fox wrote:
Experience tells me they'd either just half ass it to save face, or pretend they didn't hear it. This is a trajectory GW has been on for a long, long time.


Like when the community gave feedback saying new sisters and they released a whole new range of incredible models?

Facts are that GW has been moving away from secrecy. They were long operating on a fornightly) advance notice. Now they are up to an approximately three month announcement-release period. That seems reasonable to me. They've also been very clear that, for example, codexes are coming (not dates for them specifically, sure).

I do get that it is annoying to have that sense of unknown about your army, however I feel like the only way people wouldn't be annoyed is if they just released the items they wanted (and even then...). We've got to remember that we are in a pandemic and we don't want a repeat of the sylvaneth experience, where announced items had to be delayed.

I wish they would get rid of gone back to an index approach for the edition launch, but hey ho.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:39:38


Post by: Not Online!!!


Umbros wrote:
 Fluid_Fox wrote:
Experience tells me they'd either just half ass it to save face, or pretend they didn't hear it. This is a trajectory GW has been on for a long, long time.


Like when the community gave feedback saying new sisters and they released a whole new range of incredible models?


Which in the first place they ruinded the faction via an desinvestment cycle.
Were then surprised when the Feedback was actually to create sisters.
Were then literally overrun and had underproduced sets because they didn't read the room enough and then failed to follow up for a time with the rest of the release, which was quite annoying at the time for new sister players.


Optimally Step one should've never happened. and Step three maybee migitated by a more conciese release that was less spread out in regards to timeing.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:54:43


Post by: grouchoben


I'm not really saying GW's production cycle should be signed off by the community, whatever that would look like (not good would be my guess). And I'm not holding FFG or Corvus Belli up as paragons, just as examples of other models of handling the information relating to your games, one that is a big improvement on the GW model, to my eye. Why? Because balance isn' hampered by the tortuous production cycle of hardback publishing (I used to work in publishing), and customers aren't kept in the complete dark about what the future holds for their faction. 40k, as we all know, is a huge investment of time, money, energy and care. Given that, it would be a Good Thing© for GW to be more transparent with their customers, to avoid the kind of situation we find ourselves in: a great deal of unrest about a completely occluded and seemingly (note seemingly) never-endingly homogenous release cycle concerning their (expensive, time-absorbing and loved) product. That's all.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 14:57:27


Post by: Overread


GW had been running out of stock for the whole year or more running up to the Sisters release. It was the year-2year period where they saw massive growth. Sisters came right at the end of that massive growth spurt for GW so its no surprise they couldn't keep up with them - they weren't generally keeping up with everything else prior to them either. GW was waiting for their new factory - something we'd have felt the effect of this year were it not for Corona throwing a monkey wrench into the entire world.


I agree that step 1 shouldn't have happened. Then again its hard to make judgement calls on that without background sales data. It's also important to realise that GW sometimes has projects that lag and clearly their older release cycle of big release events was great for big launches, but mean armies could easily get pushed back and pushed back. I'd argue sisters were never off the cards, they just got pushed back and delayed and put off for so long it had the same outward impression as a disinvestment cycle.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 15:02:23


Post by: Polonius


 grouchoben wrote:
I'm not really saying GW's production cycle should be signed off by the community, whatever that would look like (not good would be my guess). And I'm not holding FFG or Corvus Belli up as paragons, just as examples of other models of handling the information relating to your games, one that is a big improvement on the GW model, to my eye. Why? Because balance isn' hampered by the tortuous production cycle of hardback publishing (I used to work in publishing), and customers aren't kept in the complete dark about what the future holds for their faction. 40k, as we all know, is a huge investment of time, money, energy and care. Given that, it would be a Good Thing© for GW to be more transparent with their customers, to avoid the kind of situation we find ourselves in: a great deal of unrest about a completely occluded and seemingly (note seemingly) never-endingly homogenous release cycle concerning their (expensive, time-absorbing and loved) product. That's all.


this makes the unsupported assumption that keeping players happy would be better for the GW bottom line than selling something to somebody now.

I worked retail sales for years, and the value of what we called a "be-back," as in, the customer didn't buy that day but said they would "be back" later to buy was almost nil. I know everybody on the internet sees themselves as the exception to every rule, but if you tell somebody that their favoriate army is getting an update in a year, you probably will lose more sales from that person than you will gain if they save up.

Also, as noted, companies get blasted [b]when they miss release dates, especially online when the toxic avengers will throw back anything a company says right back to them.

I think that the OP's argument is bunk for three key reasons. First GW has increased the window a lot, but I think they know they don't need to spend six months building hype for most releases, the hype is already there. Second, GWs approach is objectively successful in terms of sales growth. Third, increased transparancy can and often will backfire, and erode any possible gains.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 15:11:56


Post by: Overread


Lets not forget go back a few years and we often got nothing in pre-view info for months. Now we are in a position where we get around 3 months or so preview window. That's a good sized window. Yes we want more, but going far beyond that moves into areas where projects get uncertain. Where things can wobble and fall off the bridge.



I recall Spartan Games losing a LOT of community good will because they'd continually preview and then miss their own deadlines. It was one of the things that I suspect didn't help them toward their own diminishing sales. It wasn't just that your game didn't get any updates in a while or your army; i twas that you'd had stuff "promised" in marketing reveals which then never came to pass. OR came to pass years later.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 15:16:26


Post by: chaos0xomega


 grouchoben wrote:

Infinity is about to launch a new edition, N4, which is an eagerly awaited revision and polishing of a deep, complex and excellent ruleset. As part of this launch they've been releasing videos where they discuss the new edition, but also their release schedule, plans for new models, and long-term goals for faction revamps. While they're not completely open, they provide enough information for fans of a certain faction to have something to look forward to. So eg 'Shasvaasti', an awesome sneaky alien faction, have been getting a SHEDLOAD of new releases, almost unprecedented in Infinity's history, and this release might have a player of another faction, such as 'Corregidor', a bit miffed because their old models really really need an update. But wait! The company has told me that Corregidor will be getting a major overhaul in 2021, and shown a few images and profiles of a taste of their new stuff. I now, as a Corregidor player, can stomach the endless Shasvaasti love, safe in the knowledge that in 12-18 months time it will be my faction's time in the sun.



Thats all well and good, but this assumes that Corvus Belli follows through on half of what they promise. They have a horrible track record. You're just as likely to get Corregidor in 2021 as you are to get it in 2022, 2023, or have Corregidor discontinued entirely. That kind of stuff breeds bad blood, which is how you get entire communities of people to quit a game, as was the case with myself and many others in the local community after we got sick of having our factions discontinued, promised releases delayed for years, etc. DId they ever release the Acheron Falls book or whatever they ended up renaming it to, for example? I think I gave up waiting after 3+ years of "next year".

40K is the largest tabletop minis game on the market by a pretty big margin, Infinity is a game thats been relegated to the bargain bin in a lot of places. Corvus Belli could benefit from learning from GW, I'm not sure that GW would learn all that much from Corvus Belli.

A move away from the "gotcha!" big reveal and towards a more respectful, mature style of marketing would do the community a world of good - Like Infinity's Corvus Belli or X-Wing's FFG as Slipspace pointed out. Involve us in things a bit more - this wouldn't mean specific dates would have to be given, and if things had to shuffle, we could hear that too. I'd love to hear from the designers on what they're working on, see renders and sketches and webcasts discussing how they want to realise the lore or older style of a unit in its new iteration.



FFG's marketing practices for X-Wing, Armada, and Legion have probably done more harm than good. If you want to see a group of people relentlessly whinging about release schedules, long waits, lack of news, etc. etc. look no further than FFGs Star Wars mini games.


This went on for a few years before they ended up losing the SST license (as I recall it wasn't that the license was pulled so much as Hienlien's people wanted WAY too much money to renew it due to the rumors of Sony's upcoming SST 3). It looks like they actually stopped doing the year end address in 2018, but even after SST, so many of the letters read like "XYZ went sideways but it's not our fault and we've learned a lesson! In other news, BIG PLANS COMING!" Then, next year, the same thing ...


Same with the B5 license, but thats how licenses tend to go. You can get a license to a neglected and forgotten property pretty cheap usually, but if you're successful with it the licensor often wants a lot more money from you if you want to renew the license, as you have basically increased the value of the property for them and they figure they can get more by putting it up for competition with other potential licensees.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 15:42:02


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 grouchoben wrote:
"However what you need to consider is whether complaining and negativity or backlash on the internet actually hurts the overall health of the game and its profits as a whole."

That's a good point Bosskelot, but I can't help think that GW are getting a little worried about community reaction to the SM avalanche. As you said there's been a bit of self awareness in the recent media, and the animation with Cawl just pressing the primaris button to fix everything was a nice nod. Yes they're a big business and controversy can stoke sales to some degree, but public companies are also pretty anxious about wrong steps leading to loss of share price. I just hope there are voices in the company advocating for a change of approach to information in their games and releases...

I guess my thinking is that - while FFG and Corvus Belli aren't perfect by any means - they are examples of a better model of community interaction, and include their fans in their decision making to a much greater degree, and also don't paywall their rules, allowing them to be more reflexive in their balancing.
FFG? They seem to include fans, but never really take the advice into question, not to mention their horrific leadup dates and constant pushbacks have made the various FFG communities wary of them.

Especially given how they've dropped support slowly overtime without telling various communities under them while pushing harder on some others.



FFG's marketing practices for X-Wing, Armada, and Legion have probably done more harm than good. If you want to see a group of people relentlessly whinging about release schedules, long waits, lack of news, etc. etc. look no further than FFGs Star Wars mini games.
Pretty much this.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 15:57:43


Post by: catbarf


 Polonius wrote:
I worked retail sales for years, and the value of what we called a "be-back," as in, the customer didn't buy that day but said they would "be back" later to buy was almost nil. I know everybody on the internet sees themselves as the exception to every rule, but if you tell somebody that their favoriate army is getting an update in a year, you probably will lose more sales from that person than you will gain if they save up.


I would argue that investment in an army doesn't really fit the one-and-done sales model that most retail operates under. Part of the value of buying into a 'living' miniatures game is the expectation that your purchase will continue to be supported long after the money is spent.

I'll offer a different parallel: Videogame development, specifically early-access/in-development sales. There's a popular production model now where developers sell a a game early in development, at a lower price than full retail. The gamble is that there's no guarantee the game will ever fulfill its total promises, but many gamers are willing to take a risk on a product that looks fun if the developers appear competent and able to execute their vision. Because the uncertainty of future support and ongoing development are both key elements to this sales model, I think it's a better match for GW/40K.

And all evidence suggests that in this space, transparency and communication are vastly more beneficial than harmful. Gamers are hesitant to buy into an in-development title with no roadmap, no transparency, and no clear sense of where things are going or what's coming down the pipe. If it's a multiplayer title, they need to believe that the game will continue to be supported and other players will be available to play against. If it has issues, they need to know that those issues are recognized by the developer and will be addressed. Devblogs are a staple of the industry.

Can anyone describe GW's plan for 9th edition development? Do we have any idea what the design intent for the game is?

To be clear: It is not necessary to have the entire product development planned out in precise detail and then stick to that schedule religiously. General vision is fine. Broad schedule (eg: expected release date, subject to change) is fine. The important thing is showing that you have a plan, and that the plan is not 'discontinue support for the product right after someone pays $20 for it'. Keep in mind as well that with miniatures, we're talking a lot more than twenty bucks; hundreds of dollars plus dozens to hundreds of hours in assembly and painting is a very significant investment. The perceived risk is higher.

All the examples I can think of where this model led to backlash stem from developers not holding to key promises, going radio silent, grossly failing to live up to their promises, or demonstrating a focus on the wrong issues. Now, if a company suffers from transparency because they continually and repeatedly over-promise and under-deliver, that's a problem in itself, not evidence that hiding it all and keeping prospective customers in the dark is the superior approach.

Anecdotally, I've been seeing players either stop buying models for armies with unclear futures (eg Tyranids), or refrain from buying into armies that could get remade at any moment (eg Eldar), or just get burnt out entirely by the current state of the game and not knowing if it's actually going to change. Just a little bit of insight as to where the game is going, who's getting updated, and what the designers see as the game's biggest current problems would go a long ways towards building that trust.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:12:32


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually it depends on the context hybrid.
If one side was a skelleton faction comparatively to the other then it would be a propper increase and make another possible oponent an more interesting experience.

Except in this case it's the opposite. GW is adding tons of stuff to the bloated range and neglecting the skeleton faction. And you know it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:14:08


Post by: Polonius


I would argue that your early entry example actually proves my point, in that it makes more sense to grab early buyers at a discount than hope they will pay full price for a complete product.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:17:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Catbarf hit the nail on the head for me.

I think it is an issue that actually affects the player who has been around longer than the person just getting into it. Someone just getting into it might make assumptions about releases and rules support etc. such as that they are reasonably regular between ranges and factions. So they don't feel like they need to know what is coming up as they assume it won't be too long until their new sculpts/rules/whatever.

The older players who have seen the same Eldar models get repackaged over and over again since the 90s (possibly an exaggeration, do not play Eldar though I'm guessing at least some of the phoenix lords are that old and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the Falcon on shelves when I was buying my garbled mish-mash collection of Dwarfs in '97-'98) know not to make that assumption, and that you cannot assume that you'll get your update within even the next decade or that when you do it will be in any way what you wanted (Dark Eldar and Sisters players for the former, Dark Eldar players especially for the later with regards to everything since that big 5th edition release).

So after a few cycles and getting neglected (not purely in the not getting an update sense, but in not getting a decent update that fixes the existing issues of the previous and not introducing a load of new ones), people begin to want to know what the feth is going on and what the next release for their army will bring.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:28:27


Post by: Fluid_Fox


Umbros wrote:
 Fluid_Fox wrote:
Experience tells me they'd either just half ass it to save face, or pretend they didn't hear it. This is a trajectory GW has been on for a long, long time.


Like when the community gave feedback saying new sisters and they released a whole new range of incredible models?

After more than ten years of asking and being ignored?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:36:45


Post by: Polonius


GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't. They're impossible to please, they're usually just unhappy people who spill bile at the least provocation, and they seem to be angry that a company that sold them a product isn't catering to them. The worst part is that this it the faction of GW's customer base that thinks its essential, when it's really not.

Games workshop has a wide variety of profit centers. Notably, it makes a pretty penny off of licensed video games, and Black Library seems to make good money, and that's before we even get to anything gaming or hobby related. In terms of selling hobby products, you have the following groups:
1) People buying supplies. Citadel paints are an industry standard, and while IMO they're expensive for what you get, they are high quality, come in a large range, and are available everywhere. Even people that don't buy GW minis sometimes buy GW paints.
2) People who only paint. A lot of hobbyists buy GW minis to build and paint, and never play the game. They're not really bound to an army or gaming system. This group is obviously bigger than we think, which is why every AOS army gets one or more massive centerpiece models. Somebody is buying them!
3) Churned new players. the infamous "little Timmy" who gets a start collecting box for Christmas. These are the wide net to try to turn people into...
4) Army Collectors. Whether based on playing tournaments or through fluff, some people just go nuts, building either multiple armies or one big one. They see the range as a buffet of possibilities. They always have a project over the horizon. Not quote the whales, but these are people who buy a lot of stuff over a number of years.
5) The Whales. Guys who buy way more than they will every build, much less paint or play. They have closets of sealed product.

If you're a GW collector, but you don't' want to buy anything they sell... you aren't their customer anymore. GW feels like they've lost you, and would rather bring in a new customer, than try to find out how to entice you to come back. The reason: diminishing returns. If you've already built an army or two and have lost your taste for GW... it's because you don't want more GW. Maybe, maybe, GW can create the perfect product to sell you another box or two... but you're clearly done.

TL;DR GW isn't interested in convincing cranky people on the internet to buy more stuff.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:46:53


Post by: Grimtuff


 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't.


So, that's why there constantly dipping into the nostalgia mines for the last several years? Because they don't care.

Um, no. What they are doing is saying that and doing something completely different so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths.

GW: "We don't care about our long term fans. At all."
Also GW "Member Zoats?", "Member Ambulls?", "Member Stealer Cults?", "Member these mini concepts from RT/2nd with a modern spin on them?". The list goes on...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:47:28


Post by: catbarf


 Polonius wrote:
I would argue that your early entry example actually proves my point, in that it makes more sense to grab early buyers at a discount than hope they will pay full price for a complete product.


My point was that in comparison to videogames, 40K never represents a 'complete product', unless you are buying exclusively for the minis or to play older editions. For active 9th Ed gamers, it's always in a still-in-development state.

Every new release is part of a living game model, where expectation of future support and future changes are intrinsic to the product. That requires a certain amount of trust in the continued value of the product, just as buying into an early-access game requires trust that it will continue to be developed.

A lot of the reasons I hear people explain why they haven't bought more minis- because an old product line might get overhauled right after they buy it, because the rules suck and they don't know if they'll change, because they're worried the army might get discontinued entirely, or because they don't want to buy into a game dominated by one faction- boil down to a lack of trust in the continued value of the product, stemming from a lack of communication from GW.

The people affected by this might not be GW's biggest demographic, but the pure painters and 7th-Ed-players wouldnt be negatively impacted by a little more transparency, either.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:48:00


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't. They're impossible to please, they're usually just unhappy people who spill bile at the least provocation, and they seem to be angry that a company that sold them a product isn't catering to them. The worst part is that this it the faction of GW's customer base that thinks its essential, when it's really not.

Games workshop has a wide variety of profit centers. Notably, it makes a pretty penny off of licensed video games, and Black Library seems to make good money, and that's before we even get to anything gaming or hobby related. In terms of selling hobby products, you have the following groups:
1) People buying supplies. Citadel paints are an industry standard, and while IMO they're expensive for what you get, they are high quality, come in a large range, and are available everywhere. Even people that don't buy GW minis sometimes buy GW paints.
2) People who only paint. A lot of hobbyists buy GW minis to build and paint, and never play the game. They're not really bound to an army or gaming system. This group is obviously bigger than we think, which is why every AOS army gets one or more massive centerpiece models. Somebody is buying them!
3) Churned new players. the infamous "little Timmy" who gets a start collecting box for Christmas. These are the wide net to try to turn people into...
4) Army Collectors. Whether based on playing tournaments or through fluff, some people just go nuts, building either multiple armies or one big one. They see the range as a buffet of possibilities. They always have a project over the horizon. Not quote the whales, but these are people who buy a lot of stuff over a number of years.
5) The Whales. Guys who buy way more than they will every build, much less paint or play. They have closets of sealed product.

If you're a GW collector, but you don't' want to buy anything they sell... you aren't their customer anymore. GW feels like they've lost you, and would rather bring in a new customer, than try to find out how to entice you to come back. The reason: diminishing returns. If you've already built an army or two and have lost your taste for GW... it's because you don't want more GW. Maybe, maybe, GW can create the perfect product to sell you another box or two... but you're clearly done.

TL;DR GW isn't interested in convincing cranky people on the internet to buy more stuff.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk


Great stuff, sure... but the total addressable market (TAM) on warhammer is only so large. Yeah, in the short term you can just max out on the churned new players but in the longer term the whales and the army collectors are necessary too. And it's a systemic effect. If we get to the point where 40k starts shrinking (and maybe it didn't shrink from 5-7e but it certainly wasn't really growing, so it could happen), tabletop miniatures games as a whole probably start contracting, or there's some upstart who starts stealing GW's painting and model revenue too.

I just don't think GW is as invincible as everybody wants them to be; for one, their exploding stock prices are almost certainly a bubble. Yeah, they've seen gangbusters growth but they trade at like 40x earnings, that's overvalued tech company levels right there (see FT for a nice article about it). And they're not business masterminds; they've stumbled into some successful decisions around licensing but I'd argue they've also missed out on even more revenue there. And I won't even get into the whole "hold no debt" thing but while that sounds smart to Joe Q. Public, it's really not a smart way to run a company. So anyway, I don't see why I should just view their judgement on this (or many other business-related things) as infallible.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:48:56


Post by: Siegfriedfr


 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't. They're
TL;DR GW isn't interested in convincing cranky people on the internet to buy more stuff.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk


Talking for myself, but if retail prices were to drop 30% on GW, 50% on FW, and xenos players release were more consistent, they would definitely get more money from me.

Now, I realize that he stock is going up with current policy of high price+primaris flood, and they don't need me. So maybe you're half right. It's possible to please me, it's just not possible for THEM.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 16:56:58


Post by: Polonius


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't.


So, that's why there constantly dipping into the nostalgia mines for the last several years? Because they don't care.

Um, no. What they are doing is saying that and doing something completely different so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths.

GW: "We don't care about our long term fans. At all."
Also GW "Member Zoats?", "Member Ambulls?", "Member Stealer Cults?", "Member these mini concepts from RT/2nd with a modern spin on them?". The list goes on...


Do you think the people who actually bought those models did so out of nostalgia? I don't. I think GW realized it has a deep treasure trove of concepts and artwork to flesh out to make it's world more interesting. The last truly new addition to the Warhammer universe prior to Primaris was the Tau in 2003. Everything since has been based on earlier art, lore, or models. In a really weird way, GW has been fleshing out the world they created in Rogue Trader for 20+ years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
A lot of the reasons I hear people explain why they haven't bought more minis- because an old product line might get overhauled right after they buy it, because the rules suck and they don't know if they'll change, because they're worried the army might get discontinued entirely, or because they don't want to buy into a game dominated by one faction- boil down to a lack of trust in the continued value of the product, stemming from a lack of communication from GW.

The people affected by this might not be GW's biggest demographic, but the pure painters and 7th-Ed-players wouldnt be negatively impacted by a little more transparency, either.


Again, I don't think transparency is a panacea. First, I don't think GW has a very strong idea where the game is going. Second, if it's not what people want to hear, they're going to stop buying anyway.

I think a lot of players want to attribute a very common, natural part of the hobby lifecycle, which is not having any interest in building or painting more models until something really exciting comes out, and makes it into some sort of flaw from GW. I think that a lot of the people who lose interest are just losing interest. It's easy to blame new rules, lack of new rules, lack of new models, or high prices, but the reality is it's usually either a personal loss of interest or a gaming group moving to other things. Again, I think GW has decided that it's not worth it to try to convince people to stay.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:02:25


Post by: Mezmorki


As someone getting back into 40k, but with an interest in returning to an older edition, I don't envy the current situation.

The constant edition churn and codex release cycle is the most frustrating aspect of the hobby by far. I wish that their MO was to just release rule errata/updates and then provide edits to codex's for people to use freely (and replicate changes in future book printings).

The whole business model is really built on this churn though, of getting people to keep chasing and chasing and chasing in hopes of getting the full complete experience.

But you don't have to chase. Just pick a version in the past that you think is complete enough and play that - convince your buddies to play it. I don't know...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:04:09


Post by: Overread


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't.


So, that's why there constantly dipping into the nostalgia mines for the last several years? Because they don't care.

Um, no. What they are doing is saying that and doing something completely different so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths.

GW: "We don't care about our long term fans. At all."
Also GW "Member Zoats?", "Member Ambulls?", "Member Stealer Cults?", "Member these mini concepts from RT/2nd with a modern spin on them?". The list goes on...


Perhaps GW cares about the "not cranky" longterm customers


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:05:00


Post by: Grimtuff


Yes.

GW has blatantly been tickling the nostalgia bones since they redid Space Hulk in 2009. I lost count of the sheer volume of lapsed gamers that came into my local GW looking for it. There's a reason Warhammer World has reprints of RT and the RoC books.

A random kid who is in this for gaming isn't really going to be paying attention to the Zoats etc. (it's only even in 9th you can actually take them in your armies without breaking Battleforged) as they are not part of the "meta" nor do they know their histories. A returning adult or a long term player will.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:08:17


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Mezmorki wrote:

But you don't have to chase. Just pick a version in the past that you think is complete enough and play that - convince your buddies to play it. I don't know...


While I agree that this would be ideal, it is just not really feasible for a lot of people due to the environments in which they are able to play. If you are playing in a GW store (obviously ignoring all of the COVID stuff) then you have to use the current rules. Trying to set up a club to play older editions can be a nightmare of deciding on an edition to play, having a venue to play and getting people to actually turn up. Anyone who has played any form of RPG in person knows that getting a load of gamers in one place at one time can sometimes feel like herding cats.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:10:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually it depends on the context hybrid.
If one side was a skelleton faction comparatively to the other then it would be a propper increase and make another possible oponent an more interesting experience.

Except in this case it's the opposite. GW is adding tons of stuff to the bloated range and neglecting the skeleton faction. And you know it.


oh i absolutely do, i play a faction that isn't even a skeleton anymore.

But like it was said a propper roadmap might've had alleviated alot of issues.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:11:04


Post by: Polonius


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Great stuff, sure... but the total addressable market (TAM) on warhammer is only so large. Yeah, in the short term you can just max out on the churned new players but in the longer term the whales and the army collectors are necessary too. And it's a systemic effect. If we get to the point where 40k starts shrinking (and maybe it didn't shrink from 5-7e but it certainly wasn't really growing, so it could happen), tabletop miniatures games as a whole probably start contracting, or there's some upstart who starts stealing GW's painting and model revenue too.

I just don't think GW is as invincible as everybody wants them to be; for one, their exploding stock prices are almost certainly a bubble. Yeah, they've seen gangbusters growth but they trade at like 40x earnings, that's overvalued tech company levels right there (see FT for a nice article about it). And they're not business masterminds; they've stumbled into some successful decisions around licensing but I'd argue they've also missed out on even more revenue there. And I won't even get into the whole "hold no debt" thing but while that sounds smart to Joe Q. Public, it's really not a smart way to run a company. So anyway, I don't see why I should just view their judgement on this (or many other business-related things) as infallible.


Great points. I don't think GW are business geniuses, but they're clearly competent, and I'd go with their managers over the average whinger on the internet.

I think it depends on what percentage of GW hobbyists fall into the "have a full army or more, don't' plan on buying more, but would 100% buy more if the perfect army and/or rules came out," and how many of that crowd you could service with any given release.

The smartest criticism of GW is that releasing so many space marine models is like squeezing toothpast from the top of the tube. It comes out fast, but you leave a lot behind. Still, the more they lean into marines, the better they seem to do. It's a very valid question to think about marine overlaod, but it's also once we've been having for 20 years and seems open ended.

The one bit I'd throw out there is that we've been seeing new packaging for Marines, and one of the boxes to be updated and sold in stores are Sternguard. Sternguard, who are a cool and relatively new kit, but are probably barely a top 5 iconic Firstborn Elites choice? If a unit like that made the cut for reboxing, I think Marines sell even better than we think.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:11:38


Post by: hungryugolino


Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help. Even if it was just a handful of WIPs/test prints like they did for Intercessors back when they first came out, factions like Eldar or Guard could at least be sure they haven't been outright abandoned.

At this point, Primaris are bordering on actively the enemy of the entire rest of the hobby. It's not a good sign when we should be rooting for GW to be hurt by its own releases, just so real factions can get an update in between nonsense like Heavy Intercessors being gobbled up by the cultists.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:11:55


Post by: Deadnight


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't.


So, that's why there constantly dipping into the nostalgia mines for the last several years? Because they don't care.

Um, no. What they are doing is saying that and doing something completely different so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths.

GW: "We don't care about our long term fans. At all."
Also GW "Member Zoats?", "Member Ambulls?", "Member Stealer Cults?", "Member these mini concepts from RT/2nd with a modern spin on them?". The list goes on...


Not the same thing.

There's a big difference between making products that aim to target long term fans (or folks who have heard of the good old days) and trying to appeal to the cranks who will never be pleased with whatever they do.

Too many people on the internet complain endlessly and it will never be possible to win them over. Save yourself the headaches. Don't bother. Let them stew in their own toxicity.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:12:10


Post by: Polonius


Siegfriedfr wrote:
Talking for myself, but if retail prices were to drop 30% on GW, 50% on FW, and xenos players release were more consistent, they would definitely get more money from me.

Now, I realize that he stock is going up with current policy of high price+primaris flood, and they don't need me. So maybe you're half right. It's possible to please me, it's just not possible for THEM.


Maybe, but they'd also get less money from people who buy every release, or people that just buy what they need to finsih a tournament army, etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
As someone getting back into 40k, but with an interest in returning to an older edition, I don't envy the current situation.

The constant edition churn and codex release cycle is the most frustrating aspect of the hobby by far. I wish that their MO was to just release rule errata/updates and then provide edits to codex's for people to use freely (and replicate changes in future book printings).

The whole business model is really built on this churn though, of getting people to keep chasing and chasing and chasing in hopes of getting the full complete experience.

But you don't have to chase. Just pick a version in the past that you think is complete enough and play that - convince your buddies to play it. I don't know...


Or stop buying the rules, which GW has made trivially easy. For a company with such a litigious past, they are remarkly cool with Battlescribe (all datasheets and points) and 1D4 chan (all strategems, relics, etc) being out there.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:17:04


Post by: Voss


hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help.


You're going to have to support this premise beyond a personal dislike for primaris.

I've seen too many people lose interest in releases if they know about them too far ahead of time. I've seen it happen here- initial enthusiasm wanes when the release date is too far away (or gets delayed).

While individual folks may not like it, actual sales behavior suggest the 'release secrecy' gets people to put money down. While 'this is coming out now, but X is coming out in 9 months' encourages people to wait, and they don't necessarily put money on the table when the 9 months are up.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:19:19


Post by: Overread


GW also knows that most poeple have a cap on what they'll buy. Whilst online it seems that every gamer has 3 or 4 armies worth of unfinished boxes; not everyone is the same. Many don't.

In fact I'd wager many have much smaller numbers of unfinished models. So when you've a market that will have a limit on what they will get, it makes sense to make more profit per sale rather than go for mass market tactics.

If they lower prices too far sure everyone can buy into it, but at the same time each person will only buy so much before they stop. The balance for GW is how many new customers will it net and will the new customers outweigh the profits that GW would have got with higher prices from fewer customers.



Chances are GW only has a rough idea of this and chances are we don't have any real idea at all. Predicting market patterns is hard and lets not forget; GW can't do a massive advertising campaign like Sony or Disney. So they can't overnight boost their market. Furthermore GW is already at their production limits. They can't actually handle their market exploding much larger without having supply issues.

So right now there's no pressure on them to lower prices to expand the market; the market expanded on its own with other factors changing and GW has hit their production limit. Now is the time for them to invest steadily in growth.


Which is the other element, GW works best with steady numbers. They cannot deal with massive market up nor down swings. Both are very unhealthy for them. GW is honestly very traditional in business. It's not a high and fancy flying product aiming for a short shelf life ; continual product turnover per customer and advertising like made to expand super rapidly.




PS don't take this to mean I don't want lower prices. I'd love if more armies were priced like Ossiarch Bonereapers rather than like Luminoth or Daughters of Khaine.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:19:47


Post by: Polonius


 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes.

GW has blatantly been tickling the nostalgia bones since they redid Space Hulk in 2009. I lost count of the sheer volume of lapsed gamers that came into my local GW looking for it. There's a reason Warhammer World has reprints of RT and the RoC books.

A random kid who is in this for gaming isn't really going to be paying attention to the Zoats etc. (it's only even in 9th you can actually take them in your armies without breaking Battleforged) as they are not part of the "meta" nor do they know their histories. A returning adult or a long term player will.


Okay, so a limited edition boxed game from a decade ago, reprints of books only available at Warhammer world, and a few expansions for another board game. I'll give you the reprints, although I own original copies of RT and Slaves to Darkness, and I didn't start until 3rd edition. The BSF stuff has a life of it's own, and I think that if Space Hulk were given an unlimited release it could compete on it's own merits.

Don't confuse nostalgia for childhood memories, with people deep into lore and old minis. I'm not alone in having huge collections of lead despite not playing until 2003.

But I still don't think GW is doing that to appease the cranks. They're certainly happy to make a few bucks off people that have fond memories, but that's not who we arguing about here. My point is that GW 1) isn't trying and 2) shouldn't be trying to make the disaffected folks happy.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:21:18


Post by: hungryugolino


Voss wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help.


You're going to have to support this premise beyond a personal dislike for primaris.

I've seen too many people lose interest in releases if they know about them too far ahead of time. I've seen it happen here- initial enthusiasm wanes when the release date is too far away (or gets delayed).

While individual folks may not like it, actual sales behavior suggest the 'release secrecy' gets people to put money down. While 'this is coming out now, but X is coming out in 9 months' encourages people to wait, and they don't necessarily put money on the table when the 9 months are up.

Then the people you know are cattle that don't know what's good for them. If your release schedule kills enthusiasm, that's a fault with the schedule rather than the idea of basic reassurance you'll get updated models in a reasonable timeframe.

Right now we lack basic reassurance GW isn't just going to let the craftworld eldar and guard ranges die in a ditch while they shove Primaris at us forever. When was the last time we even had hinting at stuff for, say, Thousand Sons to fill the gaps in their range? Will we even get ONE more cult legion in the next five years? Have we seen a single design concept for Noise Marines or Berserkers, or even a blurry snapshot?

A few coy lore blurbs frankly can longer be trusted as evidence, and I'm sick of needing to read tea leaves. At this point, it's in the rest of the hobby's interests to see Primaris players just go away and their faction sales drop enough that GW tries other things, and that's completely perverse. I'm saying there shouldn't be that incentive in particular, yet there definitely is. Primaris and GW release schedules have created a perverse incentive.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:24:14


Post by: Polonius


hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help. Even if it was just a handful of WIPs/test prints like they did for Intercessors back when they first came out, factions like Eldar or Guard could at least be sure they haven't been outright abandoned.


Defending it morally, or defending it as a wise business practice? Either way, I think the fact that there are zero whispers of new Guardians/guardsmen might actually mean they aren't coming.

At this point, Primaris are bordering on actively the enemy of the entire rest of the hobby. It's not a good sign when we should be rooting for GW to be hurt by its own releases, just so real factions can get an update in between nonsense like Heavy Intercessors being gobbled up by the cultists.


In the NBA, seven years ago, it was generally accepted that while shooting a lot of threes could win you games, it would never win a championship. then Golden State did it three times in five years, and the two years they lost were to teams with great three point shooting. now the team that shoots the least threes does so at a greater rate than the most prolific three point shooting team from only seven years ago.

What percentage of new releases can be space marines before things curdle? It seems like we'd have hit it already, right? Maybe not though.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:26:00


Post by: hungryugolino


 Polonius wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help. Even if it was just a handful of WIPs/test prints like they did for Intercessors back when they first came out, factions like Eldar or Guard could at least be sure they haven't been outright abandoned.


Defending it morally, or defending it as a wise business practice? Either way, I think the fact that there are zero whispers of new Guardians/guardsmen might actually mean they aren't coming.

At this point, Primaris are bordering on actively the enemy of the entire rest of the hobby. It's not a good sign when we should be rooting for GW to be hurt by its own releases, just so real factions can get an update in between nonsense like Heavy Intercessors being gobbled up by the cultists.


In the NBA, seven years ago, it was generally accepted that while shooting a lot of threes could win you games, it would never win a championship. then Golden State did it three times in five years, and the two years they lost were to teams with great three point shooting. now the team that shoots the least threes does so at a greater rate than the most prolific three point shooting team from only seven years ago.

What percentage of new releases can be space marines before things curdle? It seems like we'd have hit it already, right? Maybe not though.

I mean, that flat out makes the existence of Primaris players and releases a bad thing for anyone that likes Craftworld Eldar and Guard. That's kinda fethed and it's entirely on GW.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:26:14


Post by: Polonius


 Overread wrote:
Furthermore GW is already at their production limits. They can't actually handle their market exploding much larger without having supply issues.
Some great points in this post, but this is the key fact that, until it changes, is going to really influence GW's releases. it's physical plan is at max capacity. They can't grow their market.

So, expect some price hikes!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:27:22


Post by: Voss


hungryugolino wrote:
Voss wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help.


You're going to have to support this premise beyond a personal dislike for primaris.

I've seen too many people lose interest in releases if they know about them too far ahead of time. I've seen it happen here- initial enthusiasm wanes when the release date is too far away (or gets delayed).

While individual folks may not like it, actual sales behavior suggest the 'release secrecy' gets people to put money down. While 'this is coming out now, but X is coming out in 9 months' encourages people to wait, and they don't necessarily put money on the table when the 9 months are up.

Then the people you know are cattle that don't know what's good for them. If your release schedule kills enthusiasm, that's a fault with the schedule rather than the idea of basic reassurance you'll get updated models in a reasonable timeframe.

Ugh. Your active contempt for other people is getting in the way of discussion.

It isn't the release schedule. Its how people behave, particularly in the realm of purchasing behavior. Sales psychology is a real thing
What's also a factor (and something you're either completely ignoring or are oblivious to) is warhammer isn't everything to most people. Its a hobby, probably one of several. It has to compete with everything else in people's lives.

If nothing on the release schedule interests you, don't buy it. It isn't a problem.
Keep in mind that releases happen a lot faster these days. Not all that long ago, factions could wait 5-10 _years_ between updates.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:28:15


Post by: hungryugolino


Voss wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
Voss wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
Anyone delusional enough to defend GW release secrecy is beyond help.


You're going to have to support this premise beyond a personal dislike for primaris.

I've seen too many people lose interest in releases if they know about them too far ahead of time. I've seen it happen here- initial enthusiasm wanes when the release date is too far away (or gets delayed).

While individual folks may not like it, actual sales behavior suggest the 'release secrecy' gets people to put money down. While 'this is coming out now, but X is coming out in 9 months' encourages people to wait, and they don't necessarily put money on the table when the 9 months are up.

Then the people you know are cattle that don't know what's good for them. If your release schedule kills enthusiasm, that's a fault with the schedule rather than the idea of basic reassurance you'll get updated models in a reasonable timeframe.

Ugh. Your active contempt for other people is getting in the way of discussion.

It isn't the release schedule. Its how people behave, particularly in the realm of purchasing behavior. Sales psychology is a real thing
What's also a factor (and something you're either completely ignoring or are oblivious to) is warhammer isn't everything to most people. Its a hobby, probably one of several. It has to compete with everything else in people's lives.

If nothing on the release schedule interests you, don't buy it. It isn't a problem.

You can't blame the customer for the company's exploitative decision making.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:28:20


Post by: Overread


hungryugolino wrote:

Right now we lack basic reassurance GW isn't just going to let the craftworld eldar and guard ranges die in a ditch while they shove Primaris at us forever. When was the last time we even had hinting at stuff for, say, Thousand Sons to fill the gaps in their range? Will we even get ONE more cult legion in the next five years? Have we seen a single design concept for Noise Marines or Berserkers, or even a blurry snapshot?


In many decades of 40K we've only seen one major army lost from the core game - Squats. And I'd wager a good many in this thread weren't even around back then to see the squats go. Since then the only major army removal was the loss of armies for Old World as we moved into Age of Sigmar and taht was a resounding disaster for GW of a big enough magnitude that they changed their upper management around.

Sure we've lost specialist armies like Inquisition over the years (often where they simply blend back into the armies that they came out of) and we've lost Foregeworld armies and themed Imperial guard subfaction forces. But outright loss of a whole race, that's not happened since the Squats. The chances of Eldar being lost is well into the realms of "GW is falling apart and leaking money and likely to go under next week"


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:30:32


Post by: Polonius


hungryugolino wrote:
I mean, that flat out makes the existence of Primaris players and releases a bad thing for anyone that likes Craftworld Eldar and Guard. That's kinda fethed and it's entirely on GW.


I mean, if you like those armies, but dont' like the models, then sure. Otherwise, buy what's available.

I've been playing guard for 18 years or so, and they've gotten three big waves of releases. Third edition (~2003) with the plastic cadians, plastic heavies, and plastic command; 5th edition (~2010) with valkyries, recut LRTB/Chimeras, and hellhounds, and 6th edition (~2015) with Bullgryn, The Taurox, Scions, and the Wyvvern.

You'd have to go back to the metal regiments of 2nd edition when IG got regular updates to it's model range.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:31:01


Post by: Voss


hungryugolino wrote:

You can't blame the customer for the company's exploitative decision making.


If they're buying things they don't actually want... I absolutely can. No one is under any obligation, duress or exploitation to buy primaris (or any other) models.
If they bought them, its because they _wanted_ to, and did so of their own free will.


GW crosses some lines with their FOMO crap, but that has jack to do with their policy about future releases.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:42:22


Post by: hungryugolino


 Polonius wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
I mean, that flat out makes the existence of Primaris players and releases a bad thing for anyone that likes Craftworld Eldar and Guard. That's kinda fethed and it's entirely on GW.


I mean, if you like those armies, but dont' like the models, then sure. Otherwise, buy what's available.

I've been playing guard for 18 years or so, and they've gotten three big waves of releases. Third edition (~2003) with the plastic cadians, plastic heavies, and plastic command; 5th edition (~2010) with valkyries, recut LRTB/Chimeras, and hellhounds, and 6th edition (~2015) with Bullgryn, The Taurox, Scions, and the Wyvvern.

You'd have to go back to the metal regiments of 2nd edition when IG got regular updates to it's model range.

And that doesn't strike you as a crippling issue with GW's approach to releases? Why should Guard players be stuck with a model range older than a good chunk of the playerbase when Primaris are choking on constant new sculpts?

Literally TWO or three sprues could cover a regiment if they go for the 2x5 man approach. It's naked greed and the cancerous Primaris pushing that mean we haven't gotten that.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:44:50


Post by: Polonius


hungryugolino wrote:

And that doesn't strike you as a crippling issue with GW's approach to releases? Why should Guard players be stuck with a model range older than a good chunk of the playerbase when Primaris are choking on constant new sculpts?

Literally TWO or three sprues could cover a regiment if they go for the 2x5 man approach. It's naked greed and the cancerous Primaris pushing that mean we haven't gotten that.


so, it obviously hasn't been a crippling issue for 18 years, so I dont think it's gonig to start now.

I think you are very angry about primaris, past the point where I can really relate. It's a toy that a lot of people like, and while I understand that you want different toys, obviously GW is going to keep making the toys that people are buying in huge numbers.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:46:54


Post by: hungryugolino


 Polonius wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:

And that doesn't strike you as a crippling issue with GW's approach to releases? Why should Guard players be stuck with a model range older than a good chunk of the playerbase when Primaris are choking on constant new sculpts?

Literally TWO or three sprues could cover a regiment if they go for the 2x5 man approach. It's naked greed and the cancerous Primaris pushing that mean we haven't gotten that.


so, it obviously hasn't been a crippling issue for 18 years, so I dont think it's gonig to start now.

I think you are very angry about primaris, past the point where I can really relate. It's a toy that a lot of people like, and while I understand that you want different toys, obviously GW is going to keep making the toys that people are buying in huge numbers.

The problem's been festering all this time, but Primaris are literally the reason the rest of the range isn't getting updates. If you actually like Primaris, that obviously is less of an issue for you, but let's not pretend Primaris aren't direct roadblocks for literally everyone else in the hobby, whether they realize it or not. You may think normalizing GW selling almost 20 year old sculpts is just fine and dandy, but that doesn't magically modernize the sculpts or give more variety.

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:52:57


Post by: Karol


Voss 792025 10926701 wrote:

If they're buying things they don't actually want... I absolutely can. No one is under any obligation, duress or exploitation to buy primaris (or any other) models.
If they bought them, its because they _wanted_ to, and did so of their own free will.


GW crosses some lines with their FOMO crap, but that has jack to do with their policy about future releases.


You know that is like telling a sports doing person that if only he or she doesn't want, he or she can ignore supplments and medication. If my faction is unplayable without PA, and playable with it, am I not forced to buy the book? Same with CA point updates etc. GW spliting factions in to multiple books is the same thing. I didn't like the idea of GW making one codex marines for all marines, but I could accept it as GW being done with majority of marines in one go. But it looks like every BA, DW and SW player is going to have to first buy the marine codex, which will over write points, rules etc. And then if they want to play their own faction, they will have to buy their codex. There is no other way around it, because it is not like a SW player can use older or invalid rules.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:53:49


Post by: Lorek


hungryugolino wrote:

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


I'm still failing to see how GW is exploiting its customers. Can you support this at all? It's a hobby, and I understand being very invested in it (I definitely am), but I don't see how GW's release schedule is harmful.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 17:54:13


Post by: Polonius


hungryugolino wrote:
The problem's been festering all this time, but Primaris are literally the reason the rest of the range isn't getting updates. If you actually like Primaris, that obviously is less of an issue for you, but let's not pretend Primaris aren't direct roadblocks for literally everyone else in the hobby, whether they realize it or not. You may think normalizing GW selling almost 20 year old sculpts is just fine and dandy, but that doesn't magically modernize the sculpts or give more variety.

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


I guess my only other possible reaction other than acceptance would be to post a dozen or so times on a variety of Dakka threads about how Primaris are going to steal your underpants, ruin your credit, and put flouride in your water. OTOH, you seem to have handled that part of it already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Voss 792025 10926701 wrote:

If they're buying things they don't actually want... I absolutely can. No one is under any obligation, duress or exploitation to buy primaris (or any other) models.
If they bought them, its because they _wanted_ to, and did so of their own free will.


GW crosses some lines with their FOMO crap, but that has jack to do with their policy about future releases.


You know that is like telling a sports doing person that if only he or she doesn't want, he or she can ignore supplments and medication. If my faction is unplayable without PA, and playable with it, am I not forced to buy the book? Same with CA point updates etc. GW spliting factions in to multiple books is the same thing. I didn't like the idea of GW making one codex marines for all marines, but I could accept it as GW being done with majority of marines in one go. But it looks like every BA, DW and SW player is going to have to first buy the marine codex, which will over write points, rules etc. And then if they want to play their own faction, they will have to buy their codex. There is no other way around it, because it is not like a SW player can use older or invalid rules.


I haven't bought a codex or PA in a few years. I seem to be doing just fine with the resources available.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:01:26


Post by: hungryugolino


 Lorek wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


I'm still failing to see how GW is exploiting its customers. Can you support this at all? It's a hobby, and I understand being very invested in it (I definitely am), but I don't see how GW's release schedule is harmful.

Okay so.

Simply put, GW is making a conscious choice to chase Primaris purchases rather than give basic support for a large fraction of their range. This isn't simple faction favoritism as we've seen for most of 40k, it's the failure state of a company that has obligations to multiple parts of its fanbase.

They aren't just making Primaris more than they are other factions, they're explicitly avoiding making ANYTHING for other factions except where Primaris are involved. Primaris players are the only ones that are guaranteed to get annual updates and constant new releases- which is downright abusive to players of factions which literally are still using troop sets that haven't been modernized since before some of their players were born.

GW making the decision to dedicate all their development time and releases to Primaris means that because rules are also tied to new models, players of those other factions will have worse experiences. So you have a situation where the real playerbase is not only not receiving model support (and constant price hikes on their aging sets, as insult to injury) they've also been overshadowed by slower and worse rules releases to boot, simply by virtue of "new model kit means GW will give them suitably broken rules sometimes in pursuit of sales" (which we've had admissions GW has done more than once- I believe fliers were mentioned in an interview?)

It's a vicious cycle of other factions are neglected->GW tunnel visions on the Primaris->more drones buy into Primaris, rewarding GW's bad decision making -> other factions continue to be neglected...

Until we get 20 years without an update to the range's basic models and a Codex clogged with Primaris no one really asked for.

So basically, because of maladaptive GW decision making, we're in a situation where the entire rest of the hobby is worse off because of the existence of Primaris players pumping more money and reinforcing their current decision making where Primaris get constant releases and everyone else just kind of hopes they get dragged along as an excuse for GW to pretend other factions matter to them. This is toxic and GW needs to commit to a more sensible- and fair- release schedule, even just 1:1 for Primaris/a faction that needs it. No more Primaris waves unless they're accompanied by a full faction modernization.

Realistically,though, Primaris will continue to be a cancer of GW's own making, making that entire segment of the playerbase a threat to everyone else's hobby enjoyment just by existing and reinforcing their bad decision making through their mindless purchases.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:04:43


Post by: Overread


Um what about those Necrons getting just as big an update at the same time as Primaris? Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:10:07


Post by: hungryugolino


 Overread wrote:
Um what about those Necrons getting just as big an update at the same time as Primaris? Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?

And if that was what GW had held to as a concrete rule in the first place- an update of that size and scope for neglected factions as a prerequisite for the latest Primaris cash grab, I'd have far fewer concerns. It isn't. (I'll note that Necrons weren't the worst off faction in terms of needing a full range refresh, but I don't begrudge the Necron players getting some attention.)

And if GW follows that model going forwards, I'll quite happily take that- but when you have major factions like Craftworlders and Guard in desperate need of updates, GW needs to actually resolve the problem of models ASAP. They've let the problem fester and in combination with abysmal balancing and cash grab Primaris releases adding to each other, I wouldn't be surprised to see what's left of these playerbases flat out disappear over time.

What motivation do Ork, Eldar, and Guard players have to stick around? Kitbashing or love of lore (which has also been swallowed up by the Primaris malignancy) only goes so far with a lack of GW support, especially with model-driven rules effectiveness.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:31:12


Post by: Polonius


hungryugolino wrote:
What motivation do Ork, Eldar, and Guard players have to stick around? Kitbashing or love of lore (which has also been swallowed up by the Primaris malignancy) only goes so far with a lack of GW support, especially with model-driven rules effectiveness.


Oddly enough, I spent a good chunk of 8th edition playing in tournaments with my IG, and using my store credit winnings to buy primaris, which were terrible, but I liked them.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:32:47


Post by: hungryugolino


 Polonius wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:
What motivation do Ork, Eldar, and Guard players have to stick around? Kitbashing or love of lore (which has also been swallowed up by the Primaris malignancy) only goes so far with a lack of GW support, especially with model-driven rules effectiveness.


Oddly enough, I spent a good chunk of 8th edition playing in tournaments with my IG, and using my store credit winnings to buy primaris, which were terrible, but I liked them.


And as the only one left, I'm sure that will be of great comfort to you, but I'm not talking about exceptions that prove the rule. Besides, when you buy the new models, that proves my point about the issue that is lack of updated sculpts.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:35:12


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Dunno.

Stuff will come around.

If anybody would've told people a year or 18 months ago that Harlequins and (non Caladius)-AdMech were top tier armies, while the Aberrant menace of the 2019 NOVA Open was widely seen as the worst army in the game (except perhaps for Ynnari), they'd have called you crazy.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:40:07


Post by: Karol


True. Specialy the Inari part.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:40:50


Post by: Mezmorki


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

While I agree that this would be ideal, it is just not really feasible for a lot of people due to the environments in which they are able to play. If you are playing in a GW store (obviously ignoring all of the COVID stuff) then you have to use the current rules. Trying to set up a club to play older editions can be a nightmare of deciding on an edition to play, having a venue to play and getting people to actually turn up. Anyone who has played any form of RPG in person knows that getting a load of gamers in one place at one time can sometimes feel like herding cats.


I've never had the desire or need to play in an official GW/Warhammer store, for better or worse. A few years back one opened up in my town, which was always pretty busy with people playing (cool!). But it's unfortunate that those stores are run in such a regimented manner that people aren't even allowed to play with older rules. I understand why (gotta shill the latest thing, come hell or high water), but it's too bad. Seems insane in a way that it is actually a stated policy.

Work continues with my ProHammer (aka 5th edition revival)



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:52:50


Post by: Tycho


Um what about those Necrons getting just as big an update at the same time as Primaris? Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?


Um ... they aren't. Not by a long shot. This ignores the literal years long cycle Primaris have already had leading up to this. To be anywhere near on-par, we would have to get Necrons released along side nearly every other release for the next two years. Saying that, in the month of October, Necrons will get a huge release that matches what Primaris are also received in the previous month or so is one thing. Suggesting that what 'Crons are getting in October is "just as big an update" of a model line that's seen almost constant releases since the beginning of 8th really isn't very accurate imo.

Mind you I don't WANT my crons to get constant releases over the next few years to the detriment of other lines the way my marines have. I'm just pointing out how silly it is when one side mentions being upset about the lopsided release schedule, and the other side says "HEY! Settle down over there. You're getting that thing in October and it's just as much as WE are getting in October so it's all even!". Because it's only "even" if you ignore the previous few years ... lol

My hope is that after October, they come down off the Primaris train, Crons get a few more releases, and then they spend a lot of time updating everyone else before we circle back to the next Primaris super unit ...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 18:59:39


Post by: Lord of Deeds


Lots and lots of salt in this thread that seems to boil down to blacklash againist the current focus on Marine releases.

I have no doubt that if this blacklash actually manifests itself as a sudden downturn in sales and profits, that GW, the profit driven business they are, along with their obligation to their shareholders, desire for more bonsuses, and not the least to stay employeed will take action to correct whatever they believe is causing the unacceptable decline in sales and profits.

However given their current level of profit and overall market proformance along with their current design and production lead times, it will likely take two years or more before you could look back and say GW "fixed" stuff which of course is an eternity in Internet time.

Outside of that, some of you seem to be very angry and hurt to the point that you might want to step back from GW and do something else you like. If you don't have something else you like, then make finding something else you like the priority. Don't let your distaisfaction with how GW is conducting their business steal the joy from your life.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 19:03:02


Post by: hungryugolino


 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Lots and lots of salt in this thread that seems to boil down to blacklash againist the current focus on Marine releases.

I have no doubt that if this blacklash actually manifests itself as a sudden downturn in sales and profits, that GW, the profit driven business they are, along with their obligation to their shareholders, desire for more bonsuses, and not the least to stay employeed will take action to correct whatever they believe is causing the unacceptable decline in sales and profits.

However given their current level of profit and overall market proformance along with their current design and production lead times, it will likely take two years or more before you could look back and say GW "fixed" stuff which of course is an eternity in Internet time.

Outside of that, some of you seem to be very angry and hurt to the point that you might want to step back from GW and do something else you like. If you don't have something else you like, then make finding something else you like the priority. Don't let your distaisfaction with how GW is conducting their business steal the joy from your life.

Re: how to approach GW and the best approach to the hobby going in a bad direction

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Positive reactions to their current trends are literally the opposite of what they need to hear. Backlash is literally the best thing people can do in response to this sort of nonsense.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 19:12:41


Post by: Tycho


I have no doubt that if this blacklash actually manifests itself as a sudden downturn in sales and profits, that GW, the profit driven business they are, along with their obligation to their shareholders, desire for more bonsuses, and not the least to stay employeed will take action to correct whatever they believe is causing the unacceptable decline in sales and profits.


I'm actually curious to see if that's the case. I feel like, for every person who says "oh great. Another Marine release.", there's three who are over the moon excited about it. I worry it's one of those things where there's a silent majority essentially gobbling everything up and supporting the schedule. My group is keeping an eye on things, but we've largely stepped back from 9th specifically.

Hoping they clean it up in a few months and it gets better. We shall see.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 19:19:42


Post by: Overread


Considering Indomitus outsold so well GW made another batch, I think sales were good!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 19:27:49


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Lots and lots of salt in this thread that seems to boil down to blacklash againist the current focus on Marine releases.

I have no doubt that if this blacklash actually manifests itself as a sudden downturn in sales and profits, that GW, the profit driven business they are, along with their obligation to their shareholders, desire for more bonsuses, and not the least to stay employeed will take action to correct whatever they believe is causing the unacceptable decline in sales and profits.

However given their current level of profit and overall market proformance along with their current design and production lead times, it will likely take two years or more before you could look back and say GW "fixed" stuff which of course is an eternity in Internet time.

Outside of that, some of you seem to be very angry and hurt to the point that you might want to step back from GW and do something else you like. If you don't have something else you like, then make finding something else you like the priority. Don't let your distaisfaction with how GW is conducting their business steal the joy from your life.
Take note who speaks salt and backlash. It tends to be rather constant, along with posting in a fair few posts that makes it seem like it's bigger a problem then it is.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 19:31:46


Post by: Polonius


 Lord of Deeds wrote:


Outside of that, some of you seem to be very angry and hurt to the point that you might want to step back from GW and do something else you like. If you don't have something else you like, then make finding something else you like the priority. Don't let your distaisfaction with how GW is conducting their business steal the joy from your life.


I've taken some steps away from 40k in the past. 6th/7th edition was a dark time for rules, and I didn't really play, and only painted to work on stuff I had. It's good to take a break sometimes.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 20:31:52


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
GW doesn't care about cranky long time customers on the internet. They just don't.


So, that's why there constantly dipping into the nostalgia mines for the last several years? Because they don't care.

Um, no. What they are doing is saying that and doing something completely different so they can talk out of both sides of their mouths.

GW: "We don't care about our long term fans. At all."
Also GW "Member Zoats?", "Member Ambulls?", "Member Stealer Cults?", "Member these mini concepts from RT/2nd with a modern spin on them?". The list goes on...


GW is mining its IP for content to produce in order to drive sales, nothing more, nothing less. If it reattracts oldhammer fans who stopped playing a decade or more ago thats a bonus. That doesn't make them care about cranky long time customers on the internet, it only makes them care about cash flows and IP development. Most of the people buying this gak today never engaged with the original content to begin with - I sure as hell didn't, and I've dropped more coin on this stuff than any of the Rogue Trader era vets in my game group.

The problem's been festering all this time, but Primaris are literally the reason the rest of the range isn't getting updates. If you actually like Primaris, that obviously is less of an issue for you, but let's not pretend Primaris aren't direct roadblocks for literally everyone else in the hobby, whether they realize it or not.


How do you figure? GW is literally releasing a half dozen new plastic kits every week, I fail to see how Primaris getting occasional releases means every other faction is getting nothing. FFS, the upcoming new Necron content is the largest single xenos release the game has ever seen and you're complaining about how Primaris are blocking xenos from being updated. Eye. Roll.

Simply put, GW is making a conscious choice to chase Primaris purchases rather than give basic support for a large fraction of their range. This isn't simple faction favoritism as we've seen for most of 40k, it's the failure state of a company that has obligations to multiple parts of its fanbase.


Oh get off it. You're being patently ridiculous. GW has no obligatons to its customers other than ensuring the integrity of the products that are purchased. You are not entitled to jack gak otherwise as a customer, GW doesn't owe you anything, period. If you don't like their business practices, you stop supporting their business, you are not owed any sort of change in policy or practice as a customer. If enough people agree with you, then GWs practices will hurt its bottom line and the "invisible hand" (feth, I'm not even a capitalist) will see to it that they either go under or change their practices in a way more agreeable to the market. The fact that GW continues to see its revenues and profits increase indicates that its a far cry from happening and you represent a very loud and obnoxious minority within GWs customer base.

They aren't just making Primaris more than they are other factions, they're explicitly avoiding making ANYTHING for other factions except where Primaris are involved.


This is news to me, considering all the non-Primaris related new releases that have been pumped out for the game over the past year +. Speed Freeks? Never happened. Adeptus Mechanicus Transports, Flyers, cavalry, and jump-flyers? Figment of our imaginations. Sisters of Battle? What Sisters of Battle, they don't exist. New Daemons units courtesy of Wrath and Rapture? There must have been an invisible Primaris marine in their somewhere. etc.

Primaris players are the only ones that are guaranteed to get annual updates and constant new releases- which is downright abusive to players of factions which literally are still using troop sets that haven't been modernized since before some of their players were born.


So I guess the 2.0 Codexes for Chaos Space Marines wasn't a thing. Nor were any of the udpates that almost every faction received courtesy of Psychic Awakening, White Dwarf, Vigilus, and various other mid-cycle updates, etc.

simply by virtue of "new model kit means GW will give them suitably broken rules sometimes in pursuit of sales" (which we've had admissions GW has done more than once- I believe fliers were mentioned in an interview?)


If by "admission" you mean the opposite of that.

So basically, because of maladaptive GW decision making, we're in a situation where the entire rest of the hobby is worse off because of the existence of Primaris players pumping more money and reinforcing their current decision making where Primaris get constant releases and everyone else just kind of hopes they get dragged along as an excuse for GW to pretend other factions matter to them. This is toxic and GW needs to commit to a more sensible- and fair- release schedule, even just 1:1 for Primaris/a faction that needs it. No more Primaris waves unless they're accompanied by a full faction modernization.

Realistically,though, Primaris will continue to be a cancer of GW's own making, making that entire segment of the playerbase a threat to everyone else's hobby enjoyment just by existing and reinforcing their bad decision making through their mindless purchases.


I think you need to step back from the hobby. You seem to have a massive sort of persecution complex where you're taking the existence of Primaris Marines *very* personally. It's only game, why you heff to be mad?

What motivation do Ork, Eldar, and Guard players have to stick around? Kitbashing or love of lore (which has also been swallowed up by the Primaris malignancy) only goes so far with a lack of GW support, especially with model-driven rules effectiveness.


Orks just had a pretty big model refresh over the past couple years, including a number of new units, and a gorgeous resculpt of Makari and his ork-servant Ghazkull.

Eldar just got a plastic resculpt of a phoenix lord and aspect warriors - showing that GW is clearly still working on them. Beyond that their terrain kit and resculpted jetbikes are still fairly new. Likewise Dark Eldar are still a fairly new model range, and they just got plastic resculpts of a character and an elite unit. The entire Harlequin model range is likewise still fairly new. Likewise the Ynnari Triumvirate are all of what, 3 years old?

IG have been getting tons of new character support through Blackstone Fortress and character series minis, and the Militarum Tempestus mini range is still fairly new as well.

Primaris are essentially a new army within an army, they're getting support because they need to get up to speed, in the same way that Genestealer Cults, Custodes, and AdMech have also received several larger waves of releases over the last 2 years.

Um ... they aren't. Not by a long shot. This ignores the literal years long cycle Primaris have already had leading up to this. To be anywhere near on-par, we would have to get Necrons released along side nearly every other release for the next two years. Saying that, in the month of October, Necrons will get a huge release that matches what Primaris are also received in the previous month or so is one thing. Suggesting that what 'Crons are getting in October is "just as big an update" of a model line that's seen almost constant releases since the beginning of 8th really isn't very accurate imo.


Primaris are a new army, even if they exist within the same Codex as Firstborn, the rules of the game don't really allow you to play them together effectively. Comparing a new army, to an army thats 5+ editions old (and which already has one of the newest model ranges in the game) is comparing an apple to an orange. The upcoming Necron wave is truly astonishingly massive, as if the Indomitus contents weren't already dramatic enough, the number of "independent" releases basically triples that count and is truly dramatic. You're very grossly understating the situation.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 21:55:24


Post by: Hecaton


Removed. See rule #1.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:10:37


Post by: Tycho


Primaris are a new army, even if they exist within the same Codex as Firstborn, the rules of the game don't really allow you to play them together effectively. Comparing a new army, to an army thats 5+ editions old (and which already has one of the newest model ranges in the game) is comparing an apple to an orange. The upcoming Necron wave is truly astonishingly massive, as if the Indomitus contents weren't already dramatic enough, the number of "independent" releases basically triples that count and is truly dramatic. You're very grossly understating the situation.


Except that, traditionally, when a new army (a truly new army - one that's never been seen before) has been released - it lasts a month or two and everything is out. When Dark Eldar were released in 3rd, did we see 2 or 3 straight years of multiple Dark Eldar releases? When Necrons were released at the tail of 2nd, was it a constant release schedule deep into 4th edition? What about 'nids? No. How about if we look at the Tau release in 3rd. Surely, as they were at the time, the most unique army, then their release schedule lasted years right? Nope. None of this happened. Each of these armies was released in a span of a few months (sometimes less) and then left alone in some cases for a decade. Necrons were updated in 3rd in a major way and not touched again until 5th. Dark Eldar were released over a few month period and then not touched until 5th. Nids have seen sporadic updates but nothing constant.

Primaris, who really AREN'T a "new army" were introduced in 8th and have had a pretty steady trail of releases that is unprecedented for any other army. Even if I were to agree w/you that they are a truly "new" army, show me any other army that was brand new and saw this many releases, this constantly over the course of this many months/years. You simply can't. While what the Necrons are getting is big, calling it "astonishingly massive" is a bit silly in the face of the 18 months of Primaris we've seen. It's big, and hopefully the rules turn out better than they currently appear to be (because they're pretty terrible over-all for new units), but let's not pretend like it's on par with an army that's seen constant new stuff since the beginning of 8th. Let's add to that the fact that Primaris were ALSO in Indomitus, and that Marines got TWO codexes in 8th and will be first out the gate in 9th while other books like DG haven't seen love in over three years. lol These are all facts. I'm not sure why people are fighting so hard to deliberately not see it ...

Like I said before, you're right. It's totally even. As long as you close your eyes to anything prior to NOW in terms of the releases. We've literally never seen an army get this much attention for this long and it wears thin. Especially for people like Dark Eldar players who have only LOST units since 5th ed ... but yes, let's definitely give GW a pass because, in the month of October, and completely ignoring the last 2 to 3 years, Necrons will have a release as big as Primaris (again, provided you're ONLY comparing what came out in October - which is really disingenuous).

Again, my hope is they get off the Primaris train after October and start paying attention to some of these other armies, and we can all stop talking about it, but it is funny to see the amount of White Knighting happening. I feel bad for Marine players. I shelved my marine army a year ago because it was already silly back then and it's not like that's gotten better. It's better for everyone if we acknowledge it's gotten a bit much and just hope GW pays a lot more attention to the more neglected factions now.

EDIT:

Missed this:

new Necron content is the largest single xenos release the game has ever seen


It's not. Where did you get that from?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:22:40


Post by: JohnnyHell


Love how an opposing opinion is rubbished as “white knighting” in an attempt to discredit. Not particularly arguing in good faith, there, just throwing something in to have a dig, and weirdly implying being salty is correct/cool when it’s just one option. Always find it weird to see posted.

Tbh I’m enjoying the Primaris stuff - it’s not all for me but they get our group half excited/half riled up and it keeps it interesting. None of us have the disposable income to rush out and buy 3x the new hotness so it’s not like our White Scars player will suddenly have three new Speeders or our Fists guy will have 15 Heavy Intercessors. And not everyone likes all the new kits. There’ll be a small ripple of effect but not top table silliness. Sometimes in the land of “overthinking stuff on the internet” practicalities like life and finances are forgotten.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:26:51


Post by: Hecaton


You can't deny that the support for Primaris outstrips that for all other armies by a significant magnitude.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:27:58


Post by: Tycho


Love how an opposing opinion is rubbished as “white knighting” in an attempt to discredit. Not particularly arguing in good faith, there, just throwing something in to have a dig, and weirdly implying being salty is correct/cool when it’s just one option. Always find it weird to see posted.


It's not so much that it's an opposing opinion that makes it white knighting. It's when someone literally distorts the actual fact that make it so. There's a lot of mental gymnastics happening in chaosx0mega's post. We've all seen the release numbers. Over the last few years Primaris have severely outpaced every other faction with multiple factions going years with nothing at all, but posts like his seem to want to fall back on pointing to a single release someone got a while back or on exaggerations like "the biggest xenos release we've ever seen" to imply that, somehow, one army getting releases every few weeks for years while some armies literally go years with nothing is ok.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:31:37


Post by: Hecaton


Let's not call it an exaggeration, let's call it a lie. Because it's either that or blistering ignorance.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:34:43


Post by: Tycho


Let's not call it an exaggeration, let's call it a lie. Because it's either that or blistering ignorance.




Well I was trying to be diplomatic you see ...

Plus, there's always the chance I've missed something. You always want to leave room for being wrong in any discussion right? Wouldn't be the first time I missed something everyone else had seen ... but yeah, at least with the info I HAVE seen, while the 'cron release is big, it's certainly not "the biggest xenos release we've ever seen". I could see feeling that way if you started the game in 8th, but otherwise ... yeah ... not so much ...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:43:23


Post by: Kanluwen


Tycho wrote:
Love how an opposing opinion is rubbished as “white knighting” in an attempt to discredit. Not particularly arguing in good faith, there, just throwing something in to have a dig, and weirdly implying being salty is correct/cool when it’s just one option. Always find it weird to see posted.


It's not so much that it's an opposing opinion that makes it white knighting. It's when someone literally distorts the actual fact that make it so. There's a lot of mental gymnastics happening in chaosx0mega's post. We've all seen the release numbers. Over the last few years Primaris have severely outpaced every other faction with multiple factions going years with nothing at all, but posts like his seem to want to fall back on pointing to a single release someone got a while back or on exaggerations like "the biggest xenos release we've ever seen" to imply that, somehow, one army getting releases every few weeks for years while some armies literally go years with nothing is ok.

One:
The numbers that we've seen for Marines posted in this thread for releases? They're pretty trash. It counts multibuild kits as units and models, rather than one or the other. It counts LE/event models the same way as well. And then it rolls up the subfaction releases into the same list.

Two:
Are you really going to argue that this Necron release isn't a large one? Because this isn't stuff staggered across multiple years/months like the Dark Eldar range revamp was. I genuinely cannot think of a Xenos faction that has seen this big of a release in one go.
Even the Tau Empire being added to the game wasn't this big. This is several new types of Destroyers(Hexmark, Lokhust, Ophydian), a new Monolith, new Flayed Ones, new Crypteks(Chrono and Psychomancers), new Canoptek walker(the Doomstalker), the scenery bit, the Silent King, Void Dragon Shard, and potentially the solo release of the new Warrior/Scarab and Skorpekh Destroyer kits(both of which are complete kits that could be done as ETB branded setups), the new Overlord, Royal Warden, and the 'missing frame' which was Skorpekh Destroyer Lord, Plasmancer, Cryptothralls, and a Canoptek Reanimator.

By my count?
Necrons are getting 11 kits within the next few months. With another 4 presently only having been available via Indomitus(Plasmancer, SDL, Cryptothralls, Reanimator frame) and four(Overlord, Royal Warden, Warriors, Skorpekh Destroyers) having been available via Indomitus and now in the starter sets.
That brings the total up to 15.

Marines are seeing a similar number certainly, but that doesn't take away from the Necron release being a fairly large one.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 22:48:13


Post by: Tycho


Are you really going to argue that this Necron release isn't a large one?


Kan - I've literally said in every single solitary post "this is a big release"


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 23:14:26


Post by: Kanluwen


Tycho wrote:
Are you really going to argue that this Necron release isn't a large one?


Kan - I've literally said in every single solitary post "this is a big release"

Yes, and you cut the next part out of what I said.

That I genuinely cannot think of any release this large that wasn't broken up across months or years.
Genestealer Cult, at launch? The Broodcoven box, Iconward, Neophytes, Acolytes, and Rockgrinders.
It took the next iteration of the book for them to get expanded further with the bikers, Ridgerunners, Aberrants(which initially came with Overkill) and the 7(!) characters.

Tau when launched way back when?
Pathfinders, Crisis Suits, Fire Warriors, Ethereals, Devilfish, Hammerheads, Broadsides, Kroot, Krootox, Kroothounds, Shapers, Farsight, and Stealth Suits.
Harlequins, when splintered into their own faction, were 6 kits or so.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 23:40:59


Post by: Super Ready


I can think of similar releases back in the distant past. Not quite matching the numbers, admittedly - but then GW didn't have two factories back then. However, the releases were certainly of a similar impact in terms of proportion - that is, how much support they got next to what attention other factions generally got at the time.

Specifically - I'm thinking of the initial Tyranids revamp - must have been 3rd ed? And the release of Dark Eldar when they first appeared, which was DEFINITELY 3rd, they were brand new with the starter box.

The fact that it's been so long without a similar level of upgrade since, combined with that extra factory, is part of what makes me hopeful for other Xenos armies getting similar upgrades next year. But, as has already been mentioned by others, time will tell.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 23:52:56


Post by: Overread


Tyranids got two big revamps.

3rd edition was a major reworking for Tyranids, its also when we first started to get floating zoanthropes; heroic/unique models (Old One Eye - Red Terror*); ravenors and more.

However it was swiftly followed by 4th edition which was another massive update, this time a lot of models shifting not just in design, but also into plastics. We lost a few, we gained a lot. This was, from memory, also when we started to get GW really glutting codex with heroes and unit options and weapons that weren't modelled for a very long time (sometimes never).

Tyranids got several other big releases over time and honestly right now are in a very good place overall. There's a few outliers in finecast (lictors/pyrovore, biovore) which can be sold with a few duel plastic kits very quickly. There's also old model ideas (eg the shrieks) that could make an appearance; and many of us would love new gaunts; or just a head upgrade set cause that's the only really bad thing about them.

Overall Tyranids are model wise in a very solid spot; lots of modern kits; lots of variety and options and a very good scope of options to put onto the table. Sure there are extras to have and who knows perhaps GW will move some heirodules or malanthrope over from FW.
But they don't "need" a huge revamp.


Eldar and Orks are, from my guess, two armies that perhaps need the biggest single massive model updates. Imperial guard could also honestly benefit as well; though they've a very solid core, many of their core models are quite ancient. Though I think its also masked a bit because some (like the leman russ) have had modest updates over the years which have improved the model, but not changed appearance much so its harder to spot.

*who we still have today


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 23:57:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Tyranids are one of the most complete ranges in 40k. Most of the range is plastic.

Eldar still have a few models kicking around from the RT days, and some of their original Aspect Warriors. And that Avatar... yikes.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/14 23:59:35


Post by: insaniak


 Super Ready wrote:
I can think of similar releases back in the distant past. Not quite matching the numbers, admittedly - but then GW didn't have two factories back then. However, the releases were certainly of a similar impact in terms of proportion - that is, how much support they got next to what attention other factions generally got at the time.

Specifically - I'm thinking of the initial Tyranids revamp - must have been 3rd ed? And the release of Dark Eldar when they first appeared, which was DEFINITELY 3rd, they were brand new with the starter box.


IIRC, the Dark Eldar revamp in 5th was on a similar scale.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:01:14


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tyranids are one of the most complete ranges in 40k. Most of the range is plastic.

Eldar still have a few models kicking around from the RT days, and some of their original Aspect Warriors. And that Avatar... yikes.


Hey now. That's the good Avatar. Remember the 'tall' one on the 25mm base?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:03:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I do remember that, but that was before even 2nd Ed.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:03:44


Post by: insaniak


Yeah, the 2nd edition Avatar is still one of my all-time favourite GW models. I have three of them downstairs,sadly waiting to be built. I'm not sure why.




GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:05:22


Post by: chaos0xomega


Tycho wrote:


Except that, traditionally, when a new army (a truly new army - one that's never been seen before) has been released - it lasts a month or two and everything is out. When Dark Eldar were released in 3rd, did we see 2 or 3 straight years of multiple Dark Eldar releases? When Necrons were released at the tail of 2nd, was it a constant release schedule deep into 4th edition? What about 'nids? No. How about if we look at the Tau release in 3rd. Surely, as they were at the time, the most unique army, then their release schedule lasted years right? Nope. None of this happened. Each of these armies was released in a span of a few months (sometimes less) and then left alone in some cases for a decade. Necrons were updated in 3rd in a major way and not touched again until 5th. Dark Eldar were released over a few month period and then not touched until 5th. Nids have seen sporadic updates but nothing constant.



You can't compare the release model of 10-20+ years ago with the release model today. None of the factions since 7th have been the way you described. Custodes, GSC, Admech, Harlequins, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc have all been drip fed over time.


Primaris, who really AREN'T a "new army" were introduced in 8th and have had a pretty steady trail of releases that is unprecedented for any other army.


They absolutely are. You aren't meant to mix them with Firstborn, the rules actively penalize you for doing so.

Primaris, who really AREN'T a "new army" were introduced in 8th and have had a pretty steady trail of releases that is unprecedented for any other army. Even if I were to agree w/you that they are a truly "new" army, show me any other army that was brand new and saw this many releases, this constantly over the course of this many months/years.


If we accept the idea that Primaris are a replacement for Firstborn then this is an unfair comparison, as you would expect Primaris, as a new army, to require a level of support equal to the legacy army that it is replacing. Beyond that, Primaris have 40 units including those unreleased and minor variations (assault and heavy intercessors, 3 types of Storm Speeder) by my count. 15 of those are new to this edition, and many of them are unreleased, so in order to keep things balanced and fair they don't count, as one would expect other factions to receive further support over the course of 9th. This brings Primaris to a total of 25 units. Not including their one forgeworld unit.

Genestealer Cults have 28.
Admech have 30.

It's not. Where did you get that from?


It is. Necrons are getting 23 new or resculpted units by my count, including illuminor and indomitus, and thats just what we onow of, weve bern told theres even more. Thats almost as many units as the Primaris had total prior to 9e, and more than the next largest wave - Dark Eldar - had, which was 20
.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:24:08


Post by: Super Ready


chaos0xomega wrote:
They absolutely are. You aren't meant to mix them with Firstborn, the rules actively penalize you for doing so.


What am I missing here? Only penalising I can think of is transport limitations, and it's not like you can't take Rhinos AND Impulsors.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 00:55:09


Post by: Argive


 Super Ready wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
They absolutely are. You aren't meant to mix them with Firstborn, the rules actively penalize you for doing so.


What am I missing here? Only penalising I can think of is transport limitations, and it's not like you can't take Rhinos AND Impulsors.


If he stretches any further he might dislocate something..


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:23:04


Post by: chaos0xomega


What stretching? I've provided some actual numbers which is more than what "the opposition" has done.

Admittedly saying that "the rules actively penalize you" is an exaggeration, it would be more accurate to say that the rules disincentivize you from mixing Firstborn and Primaris - I can't speak for 9th ed, but the Vigilus detachments certainly stuck to the idea of "pure" forces, the inability to cross mount units between transports, various abilities/strategems that incentivize homogeneity, etc. Its not as severe as the disincentives towards running mixed chapters, but its still there.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:30:10


Post by: Insectum7


 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the 2nd edition Avatar is still one of my all-time favourite GW models. I have three of them downstairs,sadly waiting to be built. I'm not sure why.
Lol. I wound up in that same situation at some point.
Such a great model, too!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:33:46


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the 2nd edition Avatar is still one of my all-time favourite GW models. I have three of them downstairs,sadly waiting to be built. I'm not sure why.
It just hasn't aged well.

I so want them to do to it what they did to the Greater Daemons. An Avatar with a few weapon options (big sword, a spear, something else... a glaive? Halberd?) would be amazing.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:36:08


Post by: insaniak


Yeah, not going to lie - while I think the current crop of Greater Daemons are stupidly large, a similar plastic resculpt of the Avatar with multiple weapon options would undoubtedly be drool-worthy.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:38:18


Post by: Insectum7


If they go there I want a Nightbringer as well.

But really I find those models to be too big for my taste on the table.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 01:38:23


Post by: Argive


chaos0xomega wrote:
What stretching? I've provided some actual numbers which is more than what "the opposition" has done.

Admittedly saying that "the rules actively penalize you" is an exaggeration, it would be more accurate to say that the rules disincentivize you from mixing Firstborn and Primaris - I can't speak for 9th ed, but the Vigilus detachments certainly stuck to the idea of "pure" forces, the inability to cross mount units between transports, various abilities/strategems that incentivize homogeneity, etc. Its not as severe as the disincentives towards running mixed chapters, but its still there.


I was purely referring to this assertion..

I get the sentiment. However 9th certainly seems to bridge that gap and even in 8th. But you still have/had an eye watering ridiculous pool of options allowing you to mix and match like T1 drop pods, old skool dreads with infiltrating dreads, old skool characters and so on.. the only real drawback is the transport crossover maybe but its more of a side grade then any sort of up or downgrade when your army rules are that good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, not going to lie - while I think the current crop of Greater Daemons are stupidly large, a similar plastic resculpt of the Avatar with multiple weapon options would undoubtedly be drool-worthy.


Id be happy with a 1:1 FW to plastic avatar.. That is a gorgeous beats.
Been eyeing one up on FW for ages. Shame they dont make the spear version anymore.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 02:25:12


Post by: Tycho


You can't compare the release model of 10-20+ years ago with the release model today. None of the factions since 7th have been the way you described. Custodes, GSC, Admech, Harlequins, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc have all been drip fed over time.


EXCEPT Primaris. Who have had an unprecedented and constant release stream. I still don't get how so many people refuse to see that? You don't even have to agree that it's bad, but it is a fact ...

And I get it - as long as we don't count what happened in the past, ignore the last 12-18 months of releases, AND stick to only comparing releases during the Sept/Oct timeline, then yes - it's balanced because Crons are getting a big release along side (yet another) Primaris release ... Fair enough.

Admittedly, as I said before, I think I'm in the "Loud Minority" here as the Primaris train has, up to this point lead to pretty impressive profits, but seriously, you can't tell me the release schedule is "ok" when you see the Primaris releases from the start of 8th to now, and understand that in the face of other armies essentially being eliminated from the game, and armies like DE who have had two or three new books since 5th, but have LOST models in almost every one, or DG who got nothing for 3 years while Marines got 2 codexes and a feth load of supplement support. Go back and read the forums from March/April time frame. You'll see me saying Marines will be one of the first two books in 9th and a ton of people talking about how silly that would be, and how they'd never do that as "They JUST got their second book and they've had constant releases all the way through 8th." And um. Here we are. Marines will be the first or second book. And also, if you include the supplements, probably the 3-5 books ,,,

Long term, that's not good for the health of the game. Hopefully they get it out of their system and armies like CWE and DE, etc, can get some love.


It just hasn't aged well.

I so want them to do to it what they did to the Greater Daemons. An Avatar with a few weapon options (big sword, a spear, something else... a glaive? Halberd?) would be amazing.


Leave my Avatar alone! It's perfect!

I haven't actually played CWE since 4th, but I still have my square base metal Avatar. First model I ever painted where I really felt like it was actually half-way decent. Can't deny it though - would LOVE to see them give it similar treatment to what some of the Greater Demons got!



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 03:57:19


Post by: Hecaton


 Kanluwen wrote:
Are you really going to argue that this Necron release isn't a large one?


Nobody's arguing that. They're arguing against it being the biggest xeno release ever.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 05:18:36


Post by: grouchoben


I think there has to be a middle ground here right?

Part of what my original post was trying to address was the fact that blind releases stir resentment and cynicism, especially when combined with highly asymmetric faction releases, as we've seen with Primaris.

GW could help solve a lot of the negativity that has built up in the community by just tipping their hand a little about what they have in store. Lack of transparency and sunshine causes all kinds of problems in many walks of life, and raises suspicions in your partners (here your customers). That's all. At the moment GW are most honest in their comedic moments, when they admit to issues in an askance kind of way (eg Primaris LTs, Cawl hammering the Primaris button, etc). They need to double down on that good intention of being reflexive and open, and move away from their hush hush behaviour, and that will bring the community with them.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 07:34:02


Post by: Hecaton


 grouchoben wrote:

Part of what my original post was trying to address was the fact that blind releases stir resentment and cynicism, especially when combined with highly asymmetric faction releases, as we've seen with Primaris.

GW could help solve a lot of the negativity that has built up in the community by just tipping their hand a little about what they have in store. Lack of transparency and sunshine causes all kinds of problems in many walks of life, and raises suspicions in your partners (here your customers). That's all. At the moment GW are most honest in their comedic moments, when they admit to issues in an askance kind of way (eg Primaris LTs, Cawl hammering the Primaris button, etc). They need to double down on that good intention of being reflexive and open, and move away from their hush hush behaviour, and that will bring the community with them.


The issue is that blind releases also avoid the period of time where sales drop off because something's being re-released or re-worked - and bean-counters hate that, and would encourage active deception of customers, let alone lying by omission, to avoid it. That's what caused a big part of the problem with Mk III Warmahordes, though; players didn't want an entirely new edition dropped on them with little warning. This lack of satisfaction is harder to measure, however, so corporate types who are big on analytics tend to have a blind spot for it. The Disney Star Wars films had aspects of this as well.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 08:04:06


Post by: grouchoben


Yeah I agree Hecaton, it's a balancing act. I think that, handled in the right way, you could provide more transparency without actually listing what models will soon be redundant.

A calander full of thing like "2021: Imperial Guard reinforcements", with a sketch of design philosophies and an hq reveal, for example, would do wonders for community morale, and would actually encourage people on the fence about a faction in particular, and the health of the game in general. There are an awful lot of people in that position right now.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 08:51:08


Post by: macluvin


I guess GW will get to all of our armies in due time. It's just a matter of whether or not it's going to be soon enough. Their choice of prioritization for model and rules overhauls are... interesting, I suppose. Some players that have been neglected for decades itching for a game that caters to them I reckon are a simple alternate tabletop game away from being snatched away, and with that dwindling of preciously already scarce diversity goes the rest of the game. The constant marine releases really feels like they are quickly burning out their niche in the market for a quick buck in my opinion. Hopefully they have a game plan to eventually only release the occasional upgrade blister, doodad, or even collectors/limited release special models like a hero or sergeant or something. So they can work on giving our prevailing heroes some interesting and worthy adversaries besides the other heroes.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:07:30


Post by: beast_gts


One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the third-party aspect (apologies if I've skipped over it). The Chapterhouse case showed GW didn't have the grip on their IP they thought they had, and if they show off design sketches too soon there's the possibility someone copy them and get them to market first - look at how many other companies suddenly started doing SoBs...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:10:05


Post by: Not Online!!!


the issue isn't the show off, but rather, the fact that GW simply does not tell if a rework, rules design , etc is in the works for a faction.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:13:19


Post by: Overread


Not Online!!! wrote:
the issue isn't the show off, but rather, the fact that GW simply does not tell if a rework, rules design , etc is in the works for a faction.


In theory chances are that there's a rework for every current faction in the pipeline at some stage of development. Tyranids likely have those models we want in plastic at some stage of the development process; rules reworks are likely on the cards etc... It's a continual cycle so GW has to choose a shut-off point otherwise we'd all be waiting for things all the time.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:17:11


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Overread wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
the issue isn't the show off, but rather, the fact that GW simply does not tell if a rework, rules design , etc is in the works for a faction.


In theory chances are that there's a rework for every current faction in the pipeline at some stage of development. Tyranids likely have those models we want in plastic at some stage of the development process; rules reworks are likely on the cards etc... It's a continual cycle so GW has to choose a shut-off point otherwise we'd all be waiting for things all the time.


GW yet again failed at even that, they were responsible for factions like elysians and R&H, atleast one of which is lorewise massivly important, the other technically aswell.
These players don0t know if there will ever be a substitute for their faction.
A simple yes or no would suffice to limit the bad PR the simplefact of their inexsitence sofar created.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:21:15


Post by: Overread


Thing is GW very rarely says no. They are open to bringing squats back and have been for years. They just never had the design slots, the designers and inspiration etc.... to bring it all together and do.

So they'll never say "we won't do squats" they just wont' do them. It's the same for things like Exodites - they haven't removed them they've just not done them.









And yes I hate it too I wish they'd say "we won't do exodites or if we do its in 10 years before we'll ever get time to think of it. So just go convert them if you want them". or "Yes we are doing them, they are 9 years off at best" etc..


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:30:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Overread wrote:
Thing is GW very rarely says no. They are open to bringing squats back and have been for years. They just never had the design slots, the designers and inspiration etc.... to bring it all together and do.

So they'll never say "we won't do squats" they just wont' do them. It's the same for things like Exodites - they haven't removed them they've just not done them.


And yes I hate it too I wish they'd say "we won't do exodites or if we do its in 10 years before we'll ever get time to think of it. So just go convert them if you want them". or "Yes we are doing them, they are 9 years off at best" etc..


My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:39:57


Post by: Overread


Aye but Renegades and Heritics are FW not GW and FW has always been VERY spotty even before more recent times and their even more spotty position where its clear that even FW and GW aren't quite sure what they are doing with FW.

There's a mess of shifting pressure on production (specialist games taking off) coupled to lack of marketing on FW products (which likel accounts for lower than optimum sales on items which might be why so many AoS models were withdrawn this last winter); lack of proper support (compounded by FW being outside of main GW - they didn't even know AoS was going to happen) etc...

Heck at one stage they were making an AoS team which made a handful of stormcast heads and then disbanded.


FW needs a clearer position and a long term plan so that they can be a bit more consistent.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:43:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


The rules are done by GW nowadays, since quite some time, GW failing at providing a decent job, or actually delievering quality work, is an issue.
That and the fact that they just flat out don't offer some form off assurance.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:46:39


Post by: chaos0xomega


Tycho wrote:
You can't compare the release model of 10-20+ years ago with the release model today. None of the factions since 7th have been the way you described. Custodes, GSC, Admech, Harlequins, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc have all been drip fed over time.


EXCEPT Primaris. Who have had an unprecedented and constant release stream. I still don't get how so many people refuse to see that? You don't even have to agree that it's bad, but it is a fact ...





Because its inaccurate to say so. The release history of AdMech starting in 7th edition sees basically the same pattern of release that Primaris have received. Starting with the Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii codex, which were later merged with the addition of some new units, followed by an additional character, then the new tank/transport, and then the flyer wave, cavalry and flying dudes. If you include Knights under their umbrella, its even more pronounced.

Saying that Primaris have an "unprecedented and constant release stream" is simply inaccurate. They've had basically 3 waves of releases - their initial wave, the Vanguard wave, and now the Indomitus/9e wave. They, like most factions, also got a couple of one-off releases in the middle (like the Repulsor Executioner or whatever its called). Ad Mech has basically had the same treatment, with the recent release basically being their third wave. Likewise Genestealer Cults have had two waves of releases so far. Sisters have had one with a second wave being hinted at. Custodes have had two waves so far. etc.

Admittedly, as I said before, I think I'm in the "Loud Minority" here as the Primaris train has, up to this point lead to pretty impressive profits, but seriously, you can't tell me the release schedule is "ok" when you see the Primaris releases from the start of 8th to now


I absolutely 100% think its okay. Their first wave release at the start of 8th introduced them as a barely functioning army with a huge number of critical gaps in what tools they had available to them. Their second wave (the Vanguard release) as well as the filler releases didn't really help them all that much in that regard, though it provided a couple additional tools they were in need of.This next wave basically takes them to "fully functioning" status - though it has a few unit redundancies that don't really address any needs, it for the most part basically takes them to a point where their arsenal can be compared relatively well to Firstborn.

And guess what - there will probably be ANOTHER release after that, and I'm okay with it - because Primaris still don't have Flyers of their own, likewise I imagine that Assault Intercessors with Jump Packs are going to be a thing that happens, and I'm sure theres going to be bike and jump pack character variants on the way.

FW needs a clearer position and a long term plan so that they can be a bit more consistent.


From what I understand FW is basically being/has been transitioned into the Specialist Games design studio and they are getting out of direct support for 40k. Pretty sure this has already been essentially stated and confirmed by GW themselves somewhere, though maybe not. As I understand it, rules responsibilities for forgeworlds 40k catalog is being handed off to the main 40k studio in full. There may be future "Forgeworld" 40k models/rules releases but these will be done by the main 40k team rather than by a separate forgeworld team. IIRC I think it was suggested somewhere that the upcoming 9e Forgeworld rules update may be "it" for quite some time though, as I think the goal is to support 40k fully in plastic.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:55:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Overread wrote:
Aye but Renegades and Heritics are FW not GW and FW has always been VERY spotty even before more recent times and their even more spotty position where its clear that even FW and GW aren't quite sure what they are doing with FW.

There's a mess of shifting pressure on production (specialist games taking off) coupled to lack of marketing on FW products (which likel accounts for lower than optimum sales on items which might be why so many AoS models were withdrawn this last winter); lack of proper support (compounded by FW being outside of main GW - they didn't even know AoS was going to happen) etc...

Heck at one stage they were making an AoS team which made a handful of stormcast heads and then disbanded.


FW needs a clearer position and a long term plan so that they can be a bit more consistent.

Gw has been doing all the rules for fw units for some time (they started doing all the "balancing", if you can call it that, in CA2018), and it was their decision to not include R&H in the Imperial Armour Compendium. R&H players spent our hard earned money and time on our armies and we deserve to know what they intend to do with the army. Either they should tell us: A; They plan to release a codex for R&H, or something similar (Traitor Guard, etc) or B; They have no further plans for the army, but here's some Legends rules so you can play them in casual games. So far we've gotten zilch, nada, bubkis, nothing.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 10:56:09


Post by: Seabass


well, I decided to jump back into my favorite GW hate forums and I was not disappointed!

There are a lot of criticisms of their release schedule I see as valid. It would be nice for them to tease a few things if its only a single line or something. Like "Aeldari and Drukhari are coming in 2021!"

But then I think about this forum and the inverse. What if a problem happens and they can't release on time? What happens if they spoil their potential release schedule and it doesn't include what some think it should? There are a million problems that can come from this, despite it being well-intentioned.

I don't think it makes sense for them to put anything out there before they can lock it down.I do wish that GW would open up their vaults a bit and let people know what the overarching release plan is for the main factions, but even in doing that, it's just going to piss people off more.

It's a lose/lose for them. there is no impetus to do so. Part of that is they don't want the sandbagging of potential sales to occur, the other is that we as a community, suck and are awful.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 12:02:47


Post by: Dysartes


I don't have any sales data to work from, but I doubt it'd hurt GW that much to have a very rough roadmap outlined - not to the level of individual kits, but being able to say which Codex/faction would see significant releases in a given quarter, with a big "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" at the top and bottom of the graphic.

We know DA are getting a supplement in Q1, for example, along with the first "Xenos" Codex. Expand that a bit so we have a rough outline, even if things may shift around due to production issues. Even if it only expands the "what we know" window from 3 months to 6 months (though I'd prefer 12), it'd be an improvement.

I'm not sure how I'd want new factions or editions treated in such a roadmap, though. And, yes, I'd prefer to see this for all the games, not just 40k. Ideally with monthly updates.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 12:11:58


Post by: Overread


I agree and I think we are starting to see that. Necromunda has a 1 year roadmap already, though that experiment got shot somewhat by Corona appearing and messing things up. Right now I'd wager is not the time to demand roadmaps from GW or any firm really for the future. There's so much up in the air.

Lockdowns can still happen and GW could get shut down for another month or more yet again. Even after a lockdown its not a simple as just turning the machines on, remember last time it took GW a few weeks to get back into the swing and even now they can't maintain stocks. Plus there are big releases that can't be easily shifted around - like Indomitus.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 12:46:55


Post by: psipso


This thought leads to heresy.

Is like when the god-emperor of mankind retired to holy earth for the preparation of the web way portal and didn't inform his son's primarchs about what he was doing. Then some of his sons get paranoid and desperate and they were preyed by the ruinous powers.

But on the other hand, the god-emperor couldn't inform his sons about the dangers of the inmaterium because he wanted to protect them.

I guess that GW has his own internal demons that need to deal with it. I guess that the size of the market of GW is much bigger and therefore predicts what will happen is much more difficult because everything has more variables that could go wrong.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 13:24:22


Post by: Polonius


 Dysartes wrote:
I don't have any sales data to work from, but I doubt it'd hurt GW that much to have a very rough roadmap outlined - not to the level of individual kits, but being able to say which Codex/faction would see significant releases in a given quarter, with a big "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" at the top and bottom of the graphic.

We know DA are getting a supplement in Q1, for example, along with the first "Xenos" Codex. Expand that a bit so we have a rough outline, even if things may shift around due to production issues. Even if it only expands the "what we know" window from 3 months to 6 months (though I'd prefer 12), it'd be an improvement.

I'm not sure how I'd want new factions or editions treated in such a roadmap, though. And, yes, I'd prefer to see this for all the games, not just 40k. Ideally with monthly updates.


I 100% agree that this would be great for the customer, but as you say, I don't think it helps GW make sales. And as has been pointed out, GW will be LIT UP if they deviate from their plans. I remember 10 years ago there was a rumor about a "Summer of Flyers," and people were mad that GW didn't release any flyers. Because of a rumor!

Because... ehre's the problem. Everybody talks about how it will be good for morale to hear about what's being released. Well, if you play IG, any Eldar, Tau, or Grey Knights, if you saw the three year plan for 8th into 9th, you'd be bummed. Guard got a few characters, Tau got Shadowsun in super late 8th, CWE got Howling Banshees and Jain Zarr, Harlies but DE and harlies got nothing beyond the webway portal. Even Orks got four different buggy kits for some reason, and nothing else. Grey Knights not only got nothing, but couldn't add Primaris. So you play Dark Eldar, and you see four primaris waves, Knights, Chaos Knights, Custodes, GSC, Big Death Guard Wave, CSM, Slaanesh Daeomons, and even the sprinklings for IG, CWE, and Tau.. and where is your morale? Do you shut down?

The other thing is... man, look at that list. Pirmaris is the 800 pound gorilla, but even the armies we casually claim got "nothing" mostly got something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seabass wrote:
It's a lose/lose for them. there is no impetus to do so. Part of that is they don't want the sandbagging of potential sales to occur, the other is that we as a community, suck and are awful.


If you asked me to interact with GW fans online for my job, I would refuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.


Hmm, they stopped making models for my army, and didn't incldue rules or points for it in the new FW book. I wonder what their plan is...

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think they're coming back.

The good news is that OOP forgeworld sells for a pretty penny!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 13:29:03


Post by: Spartan 117


I've been playing 40K since 3rd edition and as much as I agree with you on being disappointed with GW, the real issue is us as gamers. I still play 40K but I have not played the new editions of the game with my buddies. We are still playing 6th edition and have a blast. The reason for this is we don't want to spend a lot of money on models. The vast majority of gamers do not do this and get suckered into purchasing all the new stuff and codexes. Enjoy what you have and forgo purchasing the new stuff. Don't fall into their trap. Maybe only then, will they see what they've done to disappoint the grower base.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 13:29:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Dysartes wrote:
I don't have any sales data to work from, but I doubt it'd hurt GW that much to have a very rough roadmap outlined - not to the level of individual kits, but being able to say which Codex/faction would see significant releases in a given quarter, with a big "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" at the top and bottom of the graphic.

We know DA are getting a supplement in Q1, for example, along with the first "Xenos" Codex. Expand that a bit so we have a rough outline, even if things may shift around due to production issues. Even if it only expands the "what we know" window from 3 months to 6 months (though I'd prefer 12), it'd be an improvement.

I'm not sure how I'd want new factions or editions treated in such a roadmap, though. And, yes, I'd prefer to see this for all the games, not just 40k. Ideally with monthly updates.


Yeah, instead of just saying the first "Xenos" codex, they couldve said outright which codex. Theres no realease date announced anyway. They wouldnt lose anything if it was delayed, as long as it was really the next codex.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 13:40:41


Post by: Argive


You see saying that they cant do a rough road map/ give people SOMETHING of an idea is not entirely accurate. If GW wants to try to build good will and give people something to look forward to they can.

I present to you the case of "warhammer the old world". Announced ridiculusly 3 years in advance ( unprecedented). Nobody knows anything about other than a few sketches, a map and a very very rough rekease time. Even some of the most die hard jaded WHFB fans and GW haters have raised an eyebrow.

We have the rumour engine thread which sort of does it but in a somewhat needlesly obscure and random way. But they could do a fluff piece article with some meat on the bones about lore (bit like how they covered the banshees through the ages article) and shiw some sketches and describe their plan like a roughly a year in advance. Dont have to say x will be released on January 2022 at 14:00...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 13:57:59


Post by: alextroy


Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
I don't have any sales data to work from, but I doubt it'd hurt GW that much to have a very rough roadmap outlined - not to the level of individual kits, but being able to say which Codex/faction would see significant releases in a given quarter, with a big "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" at the top and bottom of the graphic.

We know DA are getting a supplement in Q1, for example, along with the first "Xenos" Codex. Expand that a bit so we have a rough outline, even if things may shift around due to production issues. Even if it only expands the "what we know" window from 3 months to 6 months (though I'd prefer 12), it'd be an improvement.

I'm not sure how I'd want new factions or editions treated in such a roadmap, though. And, yes, I'd prefer to see this for all the games, not just 40k. Ideally with monthly updates.


Yeah, instead of just saying the first "Xenos" codex, they couldve said outright which codex. Theres no realease date announced anyway. They wouldnt lose anything if it was delayed, as long as it was really the next codex.
What will that get them other than hordes of players saying "I'm not buying models for this faction until I see the Codex and model releases"? I think wargaming is the one area where uncertainty is an advantage to the seller. The more certainty you have, the more likely you are to wait and see rather than move along and buy in blessed ignorance.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 14:08:47


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 alextroy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.


Saying this while using a Sister of Battle as your avatar is quite ironic.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 14:16:50


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 alextroy wrote:
What will that get them other than hordes of players saying "I'm not buying models for this faction until I see the Codex and model releases"? I think wargaming is the one area where uncertainty is an advantage to the seller. The more certainty you have, the more likely you are to wait and see rather than move along and buy in blessed ignorance.


People still aren't buying unsupported codexes's minis. At least now we would know what is down the line. I know its anecdotal but at my LGS, most people don't buy NIB eldars / nids / orks, they go for used or for other sources for models. If i knew that my codex was coming soon, i'd start saving hobby money for when it drops to buy the models that are new/instead. Which means that GW would get more of my money than they do right now.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 14:23:20


Post by: stratigo


hungryugolino wrote:
 Lorek wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


I'm still failing to see how GW is exploiting its customers. Can you support this at all? It's a hobby, and I understand being very invested in it (I definitely am), but I don't see how GW's release schedule is harmful.

Okay so.

Simply put, GW is making a conscious choice to chase Primaris purchases rather than give basic support for a large fraction of their range. This isn't simple faction favoritism as we've seen for most of 40k, it's the failure state of a company that has obligations to multiple parts of its fanbase.

They aren't just making Primaris more than they are other factions, they're explicitly avoiding making ANYTHING for other factions except where Primaris are involved. Primaris players are the only ones that are guaranteed to get annual updates and constant new releases- which is downright abusive to players of factions which literally are still using troop sets that haven't been modernized since before some of their players were born.

GW making the decision to dedicate all their development time and releases to Primaris means that because rules are also tied to new models, players of those other factions will have worse experiences. So you have a situation where the real playerbase is not only not receiving model support (and constant price hikes on their aging sets, as insult to injury) they've also been overshadowed by slower and worse rules releases to boot, simply by virtue of "new model kit means GW will give them suitably broken rules sometimes in pursuit of sales" (which we've had admissions GW has done more than once- I believe fliers were mentioned in an interview?)

It's a vicious cycle of other factions are neglected->GW tunnel visions on the Primaris->more drones buy into Primaris, rewarding GW's bad decision making -> other factions continue to be neglected...

Until we get 20 years without an update to the range's basic models and a Codex clogged with Primaris no one really asked for.

So basically, because of maladaptive GW decision making, we're in a situation where the entire rest of the hobby is worse off because of the existence of Primaris players pumping more money and reinforcing their current decision making where Primaris get constant releases and everyone else just kind of hopes they get dragged along as an excuse for GW to pretend other factions matter to them. This is toxic and GW needs to commit to a more sensible- and fair- release schedule, even just 1:1 for Primaris/a faction that needs it. No more Primaris waves unless they're accompanied by a full faction modernization.

Realistically,though, Primaris will continue to be a cancer of GW's own making, making that entire segment of the playerbase a threat to everyone else's hobby enjoyment just by existing and reinforcing their bad decision making through their mindless purchases.


It's more abusive to the primaris players honestly. When you are considering marketing and how companies manipulate customers into purchases, the rapid treadmill of marine releases is extremely difficult to keep up with without a lot of investment. It'd not just be better for players of other armies, it would be better for marine players to slow down releases. But GW knows, because they have manipulated customers into it, that most people have marines and constant releases of marines, ESPECIALLY using FOMO tricks, bundle discounts, and other marketing techniques, will get people to pay the most.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 15:06:46


Post by: Not Online!!!


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.


Saying this while using a Sister of Battle as your avatar is quite ironic.


TBF banging any drum in regards to get an GW answer is , well, mostly getting you nothing, it however also is the hallmark of a company that has at best no care about the custommer base so long the money flows and at worst an active sort of contempt due to internal politicking and torwards their custommers.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 15:54:47


Post by: Overread


A thought - you know those films that sometimes become a cult classic because they don't explain everything by the end? Same as a good many anime and other serial TV shows that have strong story elements that are left up in the air.

Ever notice how no matter how far along the world has gone, there's always a core of people talking about those stories. Theorising, swapping ideas, venting frustration at the lack of a sequel. How many will go red in the face if a sequel does come that doesn't explain things how one things they might go etc..





GW's marketing might be a little like that. You don't get all the picture so you make 6 page conversations talking about that; you make loads of guesses on what might come and what you hope comes and what could come and what you're sure is coming but isn't announced yet etc...
Loads of free community engagement and GW doesn't have to do a thing to keep it going.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 17:53:04


Post by: charz


I am a returning player and I feel like GW is asking me why dont i play marines? As some one who picked a niche in a chaos faction (slaanesh) I honestly have nothing to buy but things for fun. After about $200 dollars I will own everything my army needs till I get new or updated figures (I refuse to buy kits I made fun of in middle school, for looking dumb), and I do not want to start a new army, unless it soups well with what I have. Given that Chaos Knights and Slaanesh Demons do not soup at all.

So this is great news for my wallet


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 19:12:23


Post by: alextroy


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.


Saying this while using a Sister of Battle as your avatar is quite ironic.
Nothing ironic at all. I survived the decades of no models without haunting the forums moaning about my army in every thread like it would make GW do anything at all. What I did do was speak up load and clear when GW asked for feedback, because they could do something about it. My reward was an all new range of minis.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 19:54:52


Post by: Vaktathi


Hey all, if we could keep the tone down and refrain from personal attacks, it would be appreciated, I deleted some heated/off tropic posts and their responses, let's keep it on track, thanks!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 20:05:18


Post by: Not Online!!!


 alextroy wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.


Saying this while using a Sister of Battle as your avatar is quite ironic.
Nothing ironic at all. I survived the decades of no models without haunting the forums moaning about my army in every thread like it would make GW do anything at all. What I did do was speak up load and clear when GW asked for feedback, because they could do something about it. My reward was an all new range of minis.


And you think we didn't do that?
And you think gw's model of just outright ignoring factions for a decade or two is acceptable service and should not be known,


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 21:48:25


Post by: Ordana


 alextroy wrote:
What will that get them other than hordes of players saying "I'm not buying models for this faction until I see the Codex and model releases"? I think wargaming is the one area where uncertainty is an advantage to the seller. The more certainty you have, the more likely you are to wait and see rather than move along and buy in blessed ignorance.
Yes, I imagine this certainly is a reason. And you can probably see it happen right now. How many Xeno's players are not going to buy anything in the forseeable future because we now know that there will be nothing but Marines coming until January?

Knowing the upcoming releases has certainly squashed any desire I had to continue building my GSC/Nid force until a codex for them finally drops.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/15 22:24:39


Post by: alextroy


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:My issue is, that they virtually eliminated massive, allready existing factions that have done so for the majority of the games life. Especially as a R&H player, that doesn't know if you get an dex arround the corner or just get further ignored.
And yes as you said, their behaviour in that regards is annoying as hell.
The writing is on the wall here. They are providing zero support for R&H. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that your army is dead as far as they are concerned. It may come back in some form as Traitor Guard or Cultist of Chaos, but don't hold our breath. Either figure out a way to play using existing Codexes or just move on. Banging this drum is going to get you nothing.


Saying this while using a Sister of Battle as your avatar is quite ironic.
Nothing ironic at all. I survived the decades of no models without haunting the forums moaning about my army in every thread like it would make GW do anything at all. What I did do was speak up load and clear when GW asked for feedback, because they could do something about it. My reward was an all new range of minis.


And you think we didn't do that?
And you think gw's model of just outright ignoring factions for a decade or two is acceptable service and should not be known,
If you've let them know on the surveys, all you can do now is wait and see if you get something. It seems the second most complained about things on this forum lately after too many space marines is GW isn't supporting my Forge World army anymore. Everybody knows it. Everybody who cares noticed that Elysian and R&H are not in the MFM and that Corsairs have been reduced to 3 units. We felt your pain the first 5 times it came up. Now it's just annoying.

Anybody who's been with the GW hobby knows that GW puts out what GW puts out when GW puts it out. If you are the favored child (Space Marines or Stormcast Eternals) you get lots of releases. If you're not, you wait to be the latest flavor of the month. You may wait a year two between a few model releases, or you may be Dark Eldar or Sisters of Battle waiting for over a decade to get anything at all beyond rules. You may even be Squats, the namesake army for being dropped from the GW range. It is the way it is. You need to either accept it, work around it, or be unhappy. But please don't be annoying about your choice.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 03:01:40


Post by: ccs


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Aye but Renegades and Heritics are FW not GW and FW has always been VERY spotty even before more recent times and their even more spotty position where its clear that even FW and GW aren't quite sure what they are doing with FW.

There's a mess of shifting pressure on production (specialist games taking off) coupled to lack of marketing on FW products (which likel accounts for lower than optimum sales on items which might be why so many AoS models were withdrawn this last winter); lack of proper support (compounded by FW being outside of main GW - they didn't even know AoS was going to happen) etc...

Heck at one stage they were making an AoS team which made a handful of stormcast heads and then disbanded.


FW needs a clearer position and a long term plan so that they can be a bit more consistent.

Gw has been doing all the rules for fw units for some time (they started doing all the "balancing", if you can call it that, in CA2018), and it was their decision to not include R&H in the Imperial Armour Compendium. R&H players spent our hard earned money and time on our armies and we deserve to know what they intend to do with the army. Either they should tell us: A; They plan to release a codex for R&H, or something similar (Traitor Guard, etc) or B; They have no further plans for the army, but here's some Legends rules so you can play them in casual games. So far we've gotten zilch, nada, bubkis, nothing.


Sheesh, you'd think a wall of resounding silence would be your clue concerning their intent....


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 03:59:40


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 grouchoben wrote:
Infinity is about to launch a new edition, N4, which is an eagerly awaited revision and polishing of a deep, complex and excellent ruleset. As part of this launch they've been releasing videos where they discuss the new edition, but also their release schedule, plans for new models, and long-term goals for faction revamps. While they're not completely open, they provide enough information for fans of a certain faction to have something to look forward to. So eg 'Shasvaasti', an awesome sneaky alien faction, have been getting a SHEDLOAD of new releases, almost unprecedented in Infinity's history, and this release might have a player of another faction, such as 'Corregidor', a bit miffed because their old models really really need an update. But wait! The company has told me that Corregidor will be getting a major overhaul in 2021, and shown a few images and profiles of a taste of their new stuff. I now, as a Corregidor player, can stomach the endless Shasvaasti love, safe in the knowledge that in 12-18 months time it will be my faction's time in the sun.


I'm glad the Corregidor's are getting their due. From your sister ship with the Bank, I gotta say they've got some sweet models that need an update. Hoping we bankers get some new stuff as well.

So a few things to keep in mind:
>Infinity cranks out maybe 30-35 new models a year. Games workshop cranks out... well, I don't know. More. A lot.
>Corvus Belli makes two games, three if you count the new board game.
>Infinity is a much smaller game- in terms of scale, at least- making it much less to balance (nearly every faction has the exact same weapons for the most part).
>Games Workshop's formula has been successful enough (See my analogy below). Part of that is hype from 'surprise' reveals. It works, for some reason.
>Warhammer 40k is not a balanced game, it never will be, and it never really has been. It's analog pay-to-win. You'll never convince me that this isn't by design.
>Dropping everything and impulsively buying a new 40k Army? It happens. A lot. GW knows this. That whole 'codex creep' and 'surprise reveal marketing' plays a huge role in that. For Infinity, I've never said "I can't afford a new Infinity army". - I own tons of models I never use in the actual game. It's not breaking my budget, nor is that bringing them tons of money- their profit plan seems to be 'slow and steady, consistent' where GW's seems to be "Spike, drop, surprise, spike, drop, surprise, Spike" across all their properties at different times.
>GW's planning phase for miniatures is done years in advance, according to Jess Goodwin. When it comes to 'release schedules' I think they already have most stuff ready, or at the 90% ready mark- and they're watching to see what's drawing the most attention or what gets the most hype when they allude to it or mention it.

Also, I'm just going to say it. I don't care who it pisses off.
>Adding lots of vehicles, aircraft, massive units, etc. to Warhammer 40k kinda screwed up any chance of it ever being a true balanced game. Most of what makes Infinity balanced out is that your focus is generally on synergizing a few similar units- rather than trying to mitigate some crazy insane death star. If 40k was more focused on smaller infantry-scale combat it'd probably be much more balanced.

GW will never change. WHy?

I once had a ladyfriend. Just a friend, not a lover. She had a boyfriend.

"All he wants to do when I invite him over is get some *sugar*", she says. "He never wants to do anything else."

I nodded, and then asked the question. "Well, when he does that, what do you do?"

She doesn't skip a beat. "Well, I give him some *sugar*, but afterward he just looks for an excuse to leave. He doesn't want anything else."

"Have you tried not giving him *sugar*?" I ask.

She looks at me, baffled, as if this thing I'd asked her was some obscure challenge that would require one to break the laws of physics.

"Well, no- because... he won't come over if I don't."

The poor dear couldn't understand that as long as she was giving what he wanted, and not withholding it from him- he had no reason to change his behavior patterns.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 04:54:35


Post by: charz


Look at the profitability of the third party companies to show there is a market GW ignores. All of the little companies, who with little to no marketing selling things that work with GW products. GW attacks this, but does not fill the niche that the 3rd party company fills.

A prime example would be female figures. Look at companies like Victoria Minitures, Raging Heroes, or others. Female Guard are really saught after but gw only provides them via limited releases.

This works for tons of other 3rd party companies, or every ork army.

So while Victoria Minitures may not sell as much as space marines, there is enough of a market to pay for a sculpt


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 05:28:44


Post by: Hecaton


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So a few things to keep in mind:
>Infinity cranks out maybe 30-35 new models a year. Games workshop cranks out... well, I don't know. More. A lot.
>Corvus Belli makes two games, three if you count the new board game.
>Infinity is a much smaller game- in terms of scale, at least- making it much less to balance (nearly every faction has the exact same weapons for the most part).


Mmm, there's no reason to suspect thst Infinity's *marketing* wouldn't scale up to an operation like GW's.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 05:44:34


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


Hecaton wrote:

Mmm, there's no reason to suspect thst Infinity's *marketing* wouldn't scale up to an operation like GW's.


There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.

Why should they change what they do now? It's just more work without the certainty of it paying off.
Because it will make more sales? You and I both know the stuff they make is going to sell, even if they marketed it with fart noises while giving us the middle finger the very day it released.

For many, many years GW has been selling a $12.00 book of advertisements to people. Sometimes this series of ads for GW products has a handful of rules for one or more of their games in between "how to paint this new thing we made" and "Totally legitimate battle report where the new thing we made wins!" and also "Story about these things we just made that one guy wrote while he was on the toilet this morning". This has been the case for a while now- and it's been that way, because it sells.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 05:51:45


Post by: Hecaton


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.



Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 06:03:52


Post by: grouchoben


Hey Dorito. Ah, the fiscal paradise of Tunguska! You guys get all the best fluff, Hollow Men blew my mind when they dropped

I had to check, when you said Infinity only releases 30-35 models a year because I'm a stickler I guess, and I was pretty surprised with the answer - adding up all models from their montly releases totalled 108 models released in 2019! (To qualify, this included dire foes and tin bots, but zero defiance or aristeia.)

I think I generally agree with a lot of your points there, especially about GW being a bit addicted to the surprise reveal. Their whole marketing approach is now built around it, so the discussion here really is a bit academic. But you never know, people at GW do read forums for sure, and we might give them something to chew on, in a nice way.




GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 06:10:44


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


Hecaton wrote:
Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.


If that's the way you choose to feel about what I said- then shine on, shiny diamond.

Look, I think what Infinity does with its marketing is amazing. I'm just telling you- I don't think 40k's gonna change what they're doing any time soon, because what they're doing seems to work- and as I understand, this past year was the best year they've ever had. They're going to stick with what's reliably profitable.

I'm also gonna tell you, I'm damned certain they have a backlog of completed products and they decide what to release based on what's generating the most buzz. They're not gonna roll out a cash cow until they need a cash cow, they'll let some milk trickle in between- and they'll focus their bigger releases on summer, Christmas, things like that. I got a little bird that knows a thing or two. Nothing 'that serious', but let's just say I was predicting quite a few of the 9th edition changes long before it was announced (though the timing of the release took me and apparently even my friend 'in the know' off guard).

But I'm gonna be reeeeeeaaaaal honest with you. Wanna compare the marketing of the two companies? Then let's compare their actual market.

Take a good sampling of the people who play Infinity and then take a sample of people who play 40k.

You don't have to answer this, if you're afraid it will cause drama- but I'll sure as hell say it ...look at the difference between the people, and tell me those two groups are even remotely similar in their responses to the company.

Sure, you have 'some of the same types', but I assure you- If Games Workshop posted a message about Peachy becoming a dad, there'd be a hundred people screaming about Eldar models needing new plastic kits. You don't really see nearly as much, even with a per capita comparison, from Infinity.

And that's mainly because- (get ready for shrieking, I'm lighting the fuse here, and it's gonna blow up)- Infinity is the type of game that requires a lot more tactical thinking, and spamming or putting down the biggest and most expensive toy isn't going to win the day. It's a smarter game, and a lot of the more obnoxious people don't have the patience or the wits for it. It can be absolutely infuriating, too- in a good way, but in a way where the less mature people tend to hang it up and go home after having a tantrum.

When you look at the general customer base of both games, they're quite different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 grouchoben wrote:
Hey Dorito. Ah, the fiscal paradise of Tunguska! You guys get all the best fluff, Hollow Men blew my mind when they dropped


he protec
he attac
but most of all
HE KRIZA BORAC

 grouchoben wrote:
I had to check, when you said Infinity only releases 30-35 models a year because I'm a stickler I guess, and I was pretty surprised with the answer - adding up all models from their montly releases totalled 108 models released in 2019! (To qualify, this included dire foes and tin bots, but zero defiance or aristeia.)


I was spitballing, pulled that number right out of my butt. Estimating actual models and number of kits and the like, but the number is surprising (also didn't count the little bots). Either way, main thing is there's a lot more work involved in designing a multi-part sprue than there is Infinity's "this is the dude" model with a few that use a single universal torso or something.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 07:53:03


Post by: grouchoben


Yeah i agree, the two release cycles are chalk and cheese, as are the cultures of the game. I love both for different reasons.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 13:41:47


Post by: Polonius


Hecaton wrote:
 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.



Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.


the stock has been climbing for years, and is currently 16 times what it was five years ago. that's not a splint, that's crazy speculation.

Given how much stuff sells out, they seem to be doing a pretty good job with sales as well.

I just don't understand this need to portray GW as incompetent at business.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 13:50:59


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 13:53:05


Post by: Polonius


 alextroy wrote:
Everybody knows it. Everybody who cares noticed that Elysian and R&H are not in the MFM and that Corsairs have been reduced to 3 units. We felt your pain the first 5 times it came up. Now it's just annoying.


Today's winner of the Jordan Peterson Harsh Truth Award is Alextroy!

I honestly agree. Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go. I've seen people get over divorces faster than some people get over their toys losing rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.


So... it depends on what kind of game you're designing. I've been watching a lot of Board Game criticism lately, even though I don't really play board games, and it's opened my eyes to an interesting theory.

Basically, most people assume that "balance" is a good thing, because it rewards skillful or clever play. The idea being that the winner of the game should be the person who played the best.

Except... most people secretly, or even openly, don't want to play games that only reward the skilled. As hard as it is to make a game that's balanced, it's almost harder to make a game that is unbalanced, but is still fun and rewarding. And that's what GW manages to do, with a fairly decent success rate. 40k isn't really balanced, there is a wide range of power levels between the factions and within them, but even a less skilled player will generally score some points and hang in for most of the game. Compare that to Warmachine, where a skill gap results in quick losses for the worse player.

I'm not sure GW can't make a balanced wargame, but I don't think they are even trying to do so. Instead, they're making a game that's fun to play even if you lose.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:00:04


Post by: Karol


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.


At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.

I honestly agree. Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go. I've seen people get over divorces faster than some people get over their toys losing rules

People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:04:16


Post by: Polonius


Karol wrote:
People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.


Okay, well, then if people never feel bad, they're not going to start feeling bad when it's months later and you're being annoying about it.

I guess you can assume people are generally decent, but have limited emotional bandwidth, or assume people are selfish, and never care.

Either way, they don't care anymore.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:04:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.


I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:07:24


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.


I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.


i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:12:45


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:

People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.


No, karol. Most people dislike seeing armies lose stuff. Once again, just because you play in a toxic environment doesn't mean that is the norm everywhere.

Non Drukhari players can usually appreciate how it sucks that they lost so many HQ options, or that Orks (temporarly) lost their warboss on bike.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:19:23


Post by: Polonius


Not Online!!! wrote:
i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.


Hey, we've got an anecdote here!

sure, GW has reached its highest revenues ever, and events are more common and larger than ever before, but dammit, they aren't playing it down at my store, so I'm pretty sure GW is going bankrupt.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:21:30


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.


I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.


i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.


In stores? That's good for you. I moved right before the 7th-8th changeover, so I changed local areas, but I will say that if I go around in my local club (or either of the other two local clubs I also look in) looking for a Malifaux or Mantic game, I'll get a "?!!!? what game now? Is that like Underworlds or Warcry?" look, and I know 1 person that plays Bolt Action (using their roommate to run the second army) and 3 people that play Saga, two of which are adults with kids who have time for maybe 1 miniatures wargame in every 3 months and the other is one that plays BA. 30k is about the only one that's taking off and can be found weekly, and still is only the same 6-8 people playing each other (and I built that one myself with 1 other from the ground up). LOTR has significant overlap with the people that play 30k, ironically, and is less active due to COVID shutting down the main store that supported it.

These clubs, taken as a collective, have nearly 200 people in their chats (how many are active is anyone's guess, but I can look at the numbers of participants in a WhatsAPP group and a discord server).


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:22:02


Post by: Xenomancers


I just read an article over the weekend. GW is the 3rd highest growing stock on the US exchange. Beating out the likes of Tesla and Amazon. I'm sure its crushing it in London as well.

Have you learned nothing John snow?

People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 14:34:40


Post by: Tycho


People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.


I agree that what they're doing is working, but I don't necessarily think they are keeping us in the dark. The more I think about it, the more I kind of like where they're sitting with this. Thinking about pre-6/7th time frames where they often said almost nothing about the schedule, to 6/7th where they shifted to the weekly WD model and you found out the week before, I think they currently have it just about right.

We find out about major things a few months in advance, and maybe very general outlines of what they're thinking outside of that time frame. It allows them flexibility, there's still a decent amount of engagement, and a few months is really all I need. Since this is just my hobby, I'm not sure what I would do with, say, a 12 month road map or some such.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 15:04:27


Post by: Dysartes


Tycho wrote:
We find out about major things a few months in advance, and maybe very general outlines of what they're thinking outside of that time frame. It allows them flexibility, there's still a decent amount of engagement, and a few months is really all I need. Since this is just my hobby, I'm not sure what I would do with, say, a 12 month road map or some such.


Wouldn't you like to know roughly when Codexes (or Codex Supplements) are due to drop be useful, even if they're subject to change? We generally have a reasonable idea of the next three months, thanks to regular previews - currently on Twitch, previously at events - but any idea beyond that tends to be guess work.

I imagine some of the complaining at present from non-SM players might be a little quieter if they knew even how many books to expect in Q1, let alone a list saying - for example - that we'll see the new books for DA, Tyranids, CSM and DE in Q1, with another four books planned for Q2.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 15:34:32


Post by: ArbitorIan


Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 15:43:38


Post by: Jidmah


Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 15:49:54


Post by: Polonius


 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.


I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 15:59:39


Post by: Voss


 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.
I don't think that was ArbitratorIan's point (assuming you're responding to him).

He's saying incorporating the armies you play into your own identity, especially to the point of 'stomaching' (ie, merely tolerating as personal inconvenience) other releases is fairly absurd.
Its a game, have fun with it. But walking around as the 'ork player' or the 'eldar player' as part of your day by day identity is... unhelpful. And personally, if it gets to the point that other releases make you upset, I'd say it is unhealthy.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 16:08:30


Post by: harlokin


 ArbitorIan wrote:
Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.


Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 16:14:50


Post by: Polonius


 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.



There's a local guy like this. "Plays by the fluff," is his mantra. takes idiosyncratic armies that match his view of the lore, and then is upset when they don't do well. He won't alter his vision, and he wont' accept that his vision might not be effective on the table top.

At some point, if you identify hardcore with one faction, and have a very strong vision for what it should be... you are actually not a profit center. You're the kind of guy who is likely to be very upset when the new models don't match your vision.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 16:32:07


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Polonius wrote:
 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.



There's a local guy like this. "Plays by the fluff," is his mantra. takes idiosyncratic armies that match his view of the lore, and then is upset when they don't do well. He won't alter his vision, and he wont' accept that his vision might not be effective on the table top.

At some point, if you identify hardcore with one faction, and have a very strong vision for what it should be... you are actually not a profit center. You're the kind of guy who is likely to be very upset when the new models don't match your vision.


Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 16:42:47


Post by: Hecaton


 Polonius wrote:


I'm not sure GW can't make a balanced wargame, but I don't think they are even trying to do so. Instead, they're making a game that's fun to play even if you lose.


I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:


People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.



People will take what they can get. If there's a game as prolific as 40k that had better rules, people will likely play that instead.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 19:21:19


Post by: Argive


 Polonius wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.


I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.


Guardians? Probably not if they are a huge detriment to the army as they are currently.. most Eldar players have more than enough guardians.

But Artel level of awesome aspects?? Stunning phoenix lords that kick ass and new units? Yeah i think people would buy. Id love a swooping hawks theme in my army but im not buying old junky metals or failcrap..

So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 19:23:54


Post by: Polonius


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.


And I appreciate that, but you still play with everything they DO make that fits that ethos, right?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 19:27:59


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Polonius wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.


And I appreciate that, but you still play with everything they DO make that fits that ethos, right?


Yeah, though haven't bought anything in a long time, probably since I bought a start collecting set when they first came out? So my army is pretty much exclusively composed of stuff which was available in 4th edition

Didn't even buy any of the new Broadsides as they just look too big for something which is meant to be based on the XV8 chassis.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 19:33:40


Post by: Asmodios


wrong thread


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 19:36:29


Post by: Polonius


 Argive wrote:
So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


Here's the buried lede in virtually all "I'm not giving GW any more money" type posts:

 Argive wrote:
ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


 Argive wrote:
keep working on what I have.


You still have plenty to work on! You're like a guy that still has half a steak on his plate when the waiter offers dessert, and then gets mad that they don't have what you want. Finish your steak, my man!


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 21:14:41


Post by: insaniak


Hecaton wrote:

I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Whether or not they can is kind of irrelevant when they clearly have no real interest in doing so. Which shouldn't come to anybody as a revelation by this point, since it's been their modus operandi for 30 years now, but certainly the point where they added super heavy vehicles into the core game should have been the final proof for anybody who still needed it.

I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.

And, funnily enough, once you remove optimised army design as a factor, suddenly the game starts rewarding skill again. Sure, you'll sometimes accidentally get unbalanced match-ups... but it's up to you whether you approach that as a flaw in the game, or simply as a challenge.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 21:43:21


Post by: Argive


 Polonius wrote:
 Argive wrote:
So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


Here's the buried lede in virtually all "I'm not giving GW any more money" type posts:

 Argive wrote:
ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


 Argive wrote:
keep working on what I have.


You still have plenty to work on! You're like a guy that still has half a steak on his plate when the waiter offers dessert, and then gets mad that they don't have what you want. Finish your steak, my man!


You sound like that guy who orders a 3 course meal, then rather than leave a bit of the main dish you end up forcing it all down and then forcing the desert down and then feeling physcialy ill coz you ate too much.. then you go and tell everyone how awesome you are because in your awesomeness you ate so much you were feeling unwell and they should do it too or they are a wuss and your way of eating is the only true way of eating..

This is a fun game.

I would put it to you that sometimes you can never have enough of a good thing. I enjoy spending time on making a light/photo box or terrain and switching to a different project mid way if I feel so inclined which does not have to be a GW project...and doing something completely different the next day if I want to.

Its my sandbox and I will run it how I like, if that's ok with you of course??


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 21:46:14


Post by: Tycho


Non Drukhari players can usually appreciate how it sucks that they lost so many HQ options, or that Orks (temporarly) lost their warboss on bike.


Indeed. As a non-Drukhari player myself I am often waving the flag of Drukhari only having lost units since 5th ...


I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


Agree with this 100%. I think, with the possible exception of IH, when we get a unit that is oddly over-powered, it's an unintended side-effect of the GW "process" for rules writing. For every broken release one can point to, I can pick out 2 or 3 that were mediocre to bad (although admittedly Primaris marines are skewing that a bit atm).

This is especially obvious if you look at the 6th and 7th edition WD battle reports. I hated them because they made no attempt what-so-ever to produce a coherent army. Not only that, but when they included the new stuff they were hyping, they did literally nothing to set it up well within the list. Each report was "New Chaos and Tau out this week so Bob brought one of everything Tau and Steve brought one of everything Chaos. We were playing to 1500pts but Bob's list came out to 1850 and Steve's was 1900 so close enough. Also, neither list is strictly "legal" as Bob's list has 19 HQ choices and Steve's is almost exclusively heavy support. OH! And there's a squad of Inquisitorial Henchmen played by Karen because reasons. Enjoy the new models folks!"


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 21:58:13


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Polonius wrote:
Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go.

No they shouldn't. They should bugger GW until GW gives them rules again.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.

Ok, even without any faction loyalty, I'm annoyed that space marines have that many things while other armies that I don't play and don't have any loyalty toward have so few. I'd like a more balanced pool of opponents.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 21:59:40


Post by: Polonius


 Argive wrote:
You sound like that guy who orders a 3 course meal, then rather than leave a bit of the main dish you end up forcing it all down and then forcing the desert down and then feeling physcialy ill coz you ate too much.. then you go and tell everyone how awesome you are because in your awesomeness you ate so much you were feeling unwell and they should do it too or they are a wuss and your way of eating is the only true way of eating..

This is a fun game.

I would put it to you that sometimes you can never have enough of a good thing. I enjoy spending time on making a light/photo box or terrain and switching to a different project mid way if I feel so inclined which does not have to be a GW project...and doing something completely different the next day if I want to.

Its my sandbox and I will run it how I like, if that's ok with you of course??


I had written a more extended metaphore, and it got eaten, so I wrote a quicker one, and I think my point got lost. I'm not saying your way is wrong, but that it's silly to expect a restaurant to have exactly the dessert a person would want.

If you have a complete army, and are having fun tinkering with it, I'm sure there are ways GW could get a few more bucks out of you. They have to look at all the things they could release, and decide which of those nibbles it wants to chase.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go.

No they shouldn't. They should bugger GW until GW gives them rules again.


I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 22:08:57


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Polonius wrote:
I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.

Thank you for your respect sir *gesture a military salute*.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 22:15:31


Post by: Racerguy180


insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Whether or not they can is kind of irrelevant when they clearly have no real interest in doing so. Which shouldn't come to anybody as a revelation by this point, since it's been their modus operandi for 30 years now, but certainly the point where they added super heavy vehicles into the core game should have been the final proof for anybody who still needed it.

I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.

And, funnily enough, once you remove optimised army design as a factor, suddenly the game starts rewarding skill again. Sure, you'll sometimes accidentally get unbalanced match-ups... but it's up to you whether you approach that as a flaw in the game, or simply as a challenge.


this sums it up pretty well. if you stop being a powergamer who feeds off of bs, the game is actually really fun.


unfortunately for some, they only like "fair" fights & dont like actually being challenged.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 22:30:22


Post by: insaniak


That's not being particularly fair. For some people, the challenge lies in creating the most powerful list that they can. For others, the challenge lies in besting their opponent, rather than beating their list, or getting lucky on dice rolls.

And neither of those approaches are wrong, so long their opponents are expecting the same thing. And so long as they accept that they aren't the people GW is making their game for.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 23:06:19


Post by: Racerguy180


but the powergaming aspect goes directly against how GW(the maker of game) envision it. It only breaks down when you actively play in a manner in which the entire game is NOT based upon. It's more trying to make something that it is, which it is not.
Hell, if they havent changed it by now, it should be obvious which type of play the game is entirely designed around.

Like playing basketball with a football(usa type) while not using your hands, kinda defeats the purpose.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 23:20:18


Post by: insaniak


The point is that being a powergamer, or enjoying that style of play isn't wrong. It's a game, play it however you and your opponent agree to play.

Powergaming isn't inherently a problem. How you choose to play any game doesn't have to align with how the creator envisaged it. Expecting GW to write the rules in a way to keep the game balanced for that style of play, however, is an exercise in futility.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/16 23:26:28


Post by: Voss


Racerguy180 wrote:
but the powergaming aspect goes directly against how GW(the maker of game) envision it. It only breaks down when you actively play in a manner in which the entire game is NOT based upon. It's more trying to make something that it is, which it is not.
Hell, if they havent changed it by now, it should be obvious which type of play the game is entirely designed around.

... the powergaming type, right? Because they keep the designing the ruleset with powergaming exploits that function just fine?

Maybe its just me, but I've played every edition except 7th (because I wasn't going to pay for a few pages of errata), and the game functions fine either way, and turns 'unfun' when the other player goes too far in _any_ direction (be it powergaming, fluff is god, 'only as the writer's intended' (which is unknowable, so any claim of that is an outright lie in my experience), Forge the Narrative, etc, etc)


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 06:52:19


Post by: Jidmah


 Polonius wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.


I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.


Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact that there is a massive difference in price and effort between starting a new army and adding 4-5 kits to your existing one.
My main reason for not just starting a marine army despite the conquest magazine being available in my country is that I don't have time to build, paint or play it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 07:11:00


Post by: Racerguy180


I would love it if Conquest was available in the US, easy way to add to my nephews Star Dragons.

but yes, I'm looking at adding to my recently started Flawless Host so it's easier to add to than start fresh.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 07:37:28


Post by: ccs


Karol wrote:

At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.


1) GW isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of other games to be played.

2) It may look like GWs games are near the only games in town. Especially if that's what the local stores all focus on. But they aren't.
Because those interested in games not sold/supported locally? They just order them on-line. And they only (maybe) stop in to local shops for things like paint/brushes/glue/etc.
Not every game is played in shops or as tourneys.
There's all sorts of groups playing non-GW games. You're just not a member of them so you don't see it.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 07:46:07


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Polonius wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.


Hey, we've got an anecdote here!

sure, GW has reached its highest revenues ever, and events are more common and larger than ever before, but dammit, they aren't playing it down at my store, so I'm pretty sure GW is going bankrupt.


You seem to have some real issues with me, but alas, i just stated what i saw and know.
Fact is, that one of the few hobby stores which could live off GW alone, nearly went tits up and now has only a fringe of it's former mainstay and seller product left, if you regard this as an anecdote, fine. Except , it is THE store for TG gaming in switzerland, so not even that is accurate. And GW never entered the swiss market personally themselves.

I also never claimed to be off the opinion that GW goes bankrupt, but that would've also required you to read what i said.

But you seem more interested in baselesss accusations, complaining about posters and missrepresentation.




GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 07:51:26


Post by: Hecaton


 insaniak wrote:
As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


I really disagree. They've made editions that are so unbalanced that it precludes having fun throwing dice around. Kirby didn't even like the "game" aspect of what they made; he wanted to de-emphasize that side of things dramatically.

And they definitely do change rules to make certain models sell (Carnifex/Tervigon for example, and probably cultists/CSM in 9th, for example). They don't do it with every single datasheet, it's true, but they do it often enough that it's observable.

The push for "casualness" I see less as a gaming philosophy and more as a cynical evasion of responsibility for actively bad balance. GW wants to sell an incomplete and unbalanced game that lets them guide purchases with unbalanced rules, but they don't want to take responsibility for that, so they hide behind "casualness." So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 08:16:23


Post by: ccs


 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".


Oh, OK.
Seems to work just fine for me though. Once upon a time I cared about the 40k setting. But that hasn't been the case for many years now. (I think I stopped caring somewhere in 5th)
I DO generally enjoy the game & the models though. And of course the company of the people I play with.

 harlokin wrote:
Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.


Eh. I'll run my existing armies as they are. As they fit my preferences, not the herd mentality many suffer from. I seriously doubt I'll ever be accused of running FotM.... And if I add new models/units to a force it's because I like the models (I don't even need to see the rules to determine if something's being added/excluded).


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 08:21:31


Post by: Umbros


Hecaton wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


I really disagree. They've made editions that are so unbalanced that it precludes having fun throwing dice around. Kirby didn't even like the "game" aspect of what they made; he wanted to de-emphasize that side of things dramatically.

And they definitely do change rules to make certain models sell (Carnifex/Tervigon for example, and probably cultists/CSM in 9th, for example). They don't do it with every single datasheet, it's true, but they do it often enough that it's observable.

The push for "casualness" I see less as a gaming philosophy and more as a cynical evasion of responsibility for actively bad balance. GW wants to sell an incomplete and unbalanced game that lets them guide purchases with unbalanced rules, but they don't want to take responsibility for that, so they hide behind "casualness." So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.


This push for casualness is where? They've been more explicitly focusing on matched play and competitive gaming in recent years than I've ever seen....


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 08:32:09


Post by: harlokin


ccs wrote:
 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".


Oh, OK.
Seems to work just fine for me though. Once upon a time I cared about the 40k setting. But that hasn't been the case for many years now. (I think I stopped caring somewhere in 5th)
I DO generally enjoy the game & the models though. And of course the company of the people I play with.

 harlokin wrote:
Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.


Eh. I'll run my existing armies as they are. As they fit my preferences, not the herd mentality many suffer from. I seriously doubt I'll ever be accused of running FotM.... And if I add new models/units to a force it's because I like the models (I don't even need to see the rules to determine if something's being added/excluded).


I don't disagree. If you go to my original post you can see that I'm responding to, and was needlessly triggered by, someone saying that it is "stupid" to complain about the amount of attention any faction gets, when you can simply switch to something else.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 08:58:24


Post by: insaniak


Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 09:02:03


Post by: Not Online!!!


 insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.



It doesn't`?

how often do we hear "Git Gud" arguments then. Because that is allways one of the first arguments to show up in any thread that takes issues with GW's handling of the rules.
Well that and "wait and see".

It also doesn't need to work allways, it's good enough when a sizeable enough chunk of you custommerbase adheres to it, in order to keep the "reviews" at mostly positive.
Now the other side of the coin also exists, no debate about that.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 09:16:59


Post by: Overread


Play better isn't always an argument though. If someone is beating you in any game then the first port of call should be player skill not army.


That said wargamers are really good at giving tips and guides and videos on how to build models; how to base them, paint them, convert them.

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.



I'd also say that a lot of the time the whole "net list/powergamer VS casual" issue is often far more "good player VS not so good player" issues. It's not the game that makes certain lists more powerful its that there are fundamentals of army design and sometimes people are ignorant (sometimes willfully so).

Of course there are imbalances when there's one or two army compositions that result in far more power than normal and basically make other options not worth taking army power wise etc...





GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 09:44:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Overread wrote:
Play better isn't always an argument though. If someone is beating you in any game then the first port of call should be player skill not army.


That said wargamers are really good at giving tips and guides and videos on how to build models; how to base them, paint them, convert them.

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.



I'd also say that a lot of the time the whole "net list/powergamer VS casual" issue is often far more "good player VS not so good player" issues. It's not the game that makes certain lists more powerful its that there are fundamentals of army design and sometimes people are ignorant (sometimes willfully so).

Of course there are imbalances when there's one or two army compositions that result in far more power than normal and basically make other options not worth taking army power wise etc...



Gw base-rules are not nearly as divergent from faction balance torwards power then a whole slew of better more indepth systems which rely on a more indepth system in general torwards terrain, core game mechanics and unit status.

Take the ubiquos stratagem system and watch how whole armies are designed around them in competitive for certain factions regardless of table or knowledge of an opponent.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 09:52:33


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 10:08:30


Post by: Karol


 Polonius wrote:

I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.

You would be suprised how many people don't care that much about the lore GW writes, how the models look or painting. While puting a big importance on the thing they do the most, which is gaming.

And I also think that if GW doesn't hear people talk about how unhappy they are, they do not change a thing about what they do. If you keep quit and look at painted models your rules never get better, and if we look at WFB then at some point GW may decide that there won't be any rules for your army at all.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 12:14:14


Post by: Overread


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.


There are vast books written on the tactics of chess and the rules of that are simpler than 40K. Heck there are books on drafts!

The point is there are tactical choices, but we don't talk about them enough. It creates a situation where those who are smart enough to know tactics well say that "there are not tactics" from the point of view of not tactics they like or even more depth than they'd like; meanwhile those who know nothing of tactics also say "there's no tactics" from a position of not having a clue.

Combine the two together and there's no tactical discourse and development. The knowledgeable are doing tactical stuff, it might be simple, but its not something they think about and teach to others enough. So we end up with a huge gap in the knowledge base which in turn hinders player development and might even hinder game development (loads of emails saying "there's no tactics" doesn't really give much for consumer feedback)


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 14:35:27


Post by: catbarf


 Overread wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.


There are vast books written on the tactics of chess and the rules of that are simpler than 40K. Heck there are books on drafts!


Emphasis mine. Simple does not mean shallow. Complex does not mean deep. Chess has simple rules with high emergent complexity from their interactions. 40K is a simple engine that derives depth from complex army-specific rules.

I agree that people focus on lists to the detriment of tactics. But there's not that much there that isn't army-specific, and it's more '40K 101' than something top players debate. If you understand screening, tri-pointing, and target priority, you've got most of it. And while there have been essays written on how to protect your king in chess, most of screening in 40K amounts to 'don't have gaps bigger than nine inches, and keep screens at least four inches away from valuable things'. It's not nothing, and bad players with the hottest netlist will still lose if they don't understand the fundamentals, but it's not a lot- and discussion of how to implement it immediately launches into what faction you're playing and your army composition, because those are the drivers of the relevant decisions.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 18:22:08


Post by: Hecaton


 insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.



It works pretty well. You've got people on this website who basically think it's their opponent's responsbility to provide them a balanced game, not GW's.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 19:04:40


Post by: insaniak


You also have a whole bunch of other people mad at GW for writing crap rules.

Hence, if their strategy is to make people blame each other instead of GW for the state of the rules, it's clearly not working.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 19:42:30


Post by: Blastaar


 insaniak wrote:
You also have a whole bunch of other people mad at GW for writing crap rules.

Hence, if their strategy is to make people blame each other instead of GW for the state of the rules, it's clearly not working.


Right. But GW will never, ever, ever, ever write good rules if crap ones are so profitable.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 19:53:04


Post by: Hecaton


 insaniak wrote:
You also have a whole bunch of other people mad at GW for writing crap rules.

Hence, if their strategy is to make people blame each other instead of GW for the state of the rules, it's clearly not working.


It's working far better for them than any other miniatures company. I don't know any other wargame where when the developers write rules the playerbase blames their opponents instead if the writers.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 21:43:21


Post by: Alwrath


 grouchoben wrote:
Yeah you're right Johnny. I'd prefer them to. Would you? Would we all? What do they benefit from their current stazi-level of information control, is the question, and is it worth the barrels of salt that are currently building up in the community?


I think the barrels of salt you refer to are the communities issue, not GW's. People need to chill out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
I think that GW may risk some people their games for good. It is one thing to wait for the next FAQ or CA, and have a hope that maybe next updated codex is yours and be told that GW plans to update your faction in 2 plus years times. Now some people may switch an army, while waiting, or change from w40k to AoS. But there is also a bunch of people who will leave. Specialy if GW botched your codex, and new models come only with a new one. The known prospect of a 2 plus year wait would not be a nice thing, specialy for a new player who hasn't played for decades.

GW clearly knows what they are doing business wise, as they seem to be getting bigger and bigger. The games may often be unfun for parts of their fandoms, but having a good game doesn't seem to be GW goal, or at least not a main goal.


People leave 40k for different reason's, I highly doubt any of it has to do with GW. Which codex did GW botch in 8th edition? As far as I know, I have seen most of the races played in my group and on Youtube battle reports and all the codex's seem to perform fine in casual/semi competitive games. Most of the time if a player loses a game its due to his player skill, not using the right stratagem's or not playing for the objectives in these new missions. What codex is so horrible that you cant game with in a casual/semi competitive setting?

Who said 40k is no longer fun, and why do they feel that way? 8th edition is the most fun our gaming group has ever had with 40k, and that is saying alot. GW have done an incredible job with 8th imo, and 9th will be even better.

Honestly, I think your points are exaggerated and you need to take a break from your thought process on what YOU think other 40k players feel about 8th edition, and stop saying people are gonna leave 40k for good. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Is true that GW is spamming space marines non stop. But they are also releasing more models for all other lines, games, and factions than ever before.


The truth is , compared with how things were 15-10 years ago, GW has pumped out their output of new stuff, models, games, etc... trought the roof. That means, we also have a more ton of marines, because if you have 10 marine releases an 4 non marine releases and you double it, you'll end up with 8 non marine releases but with 20 marine ones.

Is true that it can look like you receive nothing if you play a single warhammer 40k faction that isn't one of the big ones like Marines or Chaos. But thats a small sub-set of the player base.


Well said, people need to understand, Marines is GW's cash cow, its a train that has to keep going, and because of that, other codex's get model releases. It blows me away that people have explained it to Dakka forum members for the past 20+ years and every other week they forget for some reason and then its back to complaining. It boggles my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"They're making lots of money, therefore there is literally no avenue or aspect of their business or business practices that can be changed, improved or otherwise upgraded."

You know who else makes lots of money? EA. Activision. Ubisoft. And they're a pack of witches.


"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"



Them mountains of SM datasheets that literally outnumber entire factions combined together are not healthy for the game long term. They might make them a lot of cashola short term but it is damaging and frankly demeaning to the long term players who have basically been told they are playing second fiddle for choosing the wrong army.



How is GW releasing models for an army " damaging " to a player in any way? Were talking about a game where you set up models, roll some dice, have a good time with friends, maybe have a beer or 2... and you want to complain that your army doesn't get as many releases as Space Marines because GW HAS to keep selling them to stay afloat as a company? You do realize that if GW didnt do it this way sales would be poor and then the Company would go bankrupt right? So what would you rather have? A cool army that has releases? Or nothing and you have to find a different game to play because GW decided to take some random Dakka forum members advice and tried to sell too many releases for another faction that people wont be as interested in buying because they are not Marines?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/17 22:46:52


Post by: Alwrath


hungryugolino wrote:
 Lorek wrote:
hungryugolino wrote:

Saying "it's a toy" doesn't change that the company is pushing some decidedly exploitative and customer-hostile policies in how it approaches those sales.


I'm still failing to see how GW is exploiting its customers. Can you support this at all? It's a hobby, and I understand being very invested in it (I definitely am), but I don't see how GW's release schedule is harmful.

Okay so.

Simply put, GW is making a conscious choice to chase Primaris purchases rather than give basic support for a large fraction of their range. This isn't simple faction favoritism as we've seen for most of 40k, it's the failure state of a company that has obligations to multiple parts of its fanbase.

They aren't just making Primaris more than they are other factions, they're explicitly avoiding making ANYTHING for other factions except where Primaris are involved. Primaris players are the only ones that are guaranteed to get annual updates and constant new releases- which is downright abusive to players of factions which literally are still using troop sets that haven't been modernized since before some of their players were born.

GW making the decision to dedicate all their development time and releases to Primaris means that because rules are also tied to new models, players of those other factions will have worse experiences. So you have a situation where the real playerbase is not only not receiving model support (and constant price hikes on their aging sets, as insult to injury) they've also been overshadowed by slower and worse rules releases to boot, simply by virtue of "new model kit means GW will give them suitably broken rules sometimes in pursuit of sales" (which we've had admissions GW has done more than once- I believe fliers were mentioned in an interview?)

It's a vicious cycle of other factions are neglected->GW tunnel visions on the Primaris->more drones buy into Primaris, rewarding GW's bad decision making -> other factions continue to be neglected...

Until we get 20 years without an update to the range's basic models and a Codex clogged with Primaris no one really asked for.

So basically, because of maladaptive GW decision making, we're in a situation where the entire rest of the hobby is worse off because of the existence of Primaris players pumping more money and reinforcing their current decision making where Primaris get constant releases and everyone else just kind of hopes they get dragged along as an excuse for GW to pretend other factions matter to them. This is toxic and GW needs to commit to a more sensible- and fair- release schedule, even just 1:1 for Primaris/a faction that needs it. No more Primaris waves unless they're accompanied by a full faction modernization.

Realistically,though, Primaris will continue to be a cancer of GW's own making, making that entire segment of the playerbase a threat to everyone else's hobby enjoyment just by existing and reinforcing their bad decision making through their mindless purchases.


Care to explain to us why you think a GW release for an army is " abusive " just because its not a release for your army? You may want to look up the word " abusive " in the dictionary. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't think the hobby is worse off at all. People are excited about 40k, and other races/codex's have seen plenty of releases. Plenty of people are playing factions other than Marines and are winning tournaments as well. What is this toxic GW behavior your referring to? How is Primaris " cancer " when the hobby and people who participate in modeling, painting, playing, are having fun with 40k because they are successful as a company? How are Primaris players " a threat " to your enjoyment? How is playing with older models against new models when even the old models are UPDATED WITH UPDATED RULES every single edition a bad thing? Some people would not purchase new models for nostalgic reason's or because they like the current range better and do not want it to change, so why do you think you are their spokesperson all of a sudden? Why are Primaris army people " mindless purchasers " ? I bought a Primaris army because its fun, looks cool and is fun to play, which im sure alot of people had the same reasons as I did. My decision to purchase was not mindless, so why should us Primaris players believe your opinion on our purchases and army matter?

Maybe you should consider that you have an attitude, and are possibly toxic, and that you have alot of opinions about 40k and GW as a company that simply aren't based on reality. Maybe you should move on to a different game if the 40k and GW experience is negative for you.

Meanwhile let us 40k gamers keep having fun rolling dice, playing games with old models with updated rules vs new shiny Primaris in 9th edition, without you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hungryugolino wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Um what about those Necrons getting just as big an update at the same time as Primaris? Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?



What motivation do Ork, Eldar, and Guard players have to stick around? Kitbashing or love of lore (which has also been swallowed up by the Primaris malignancy) only goes so far with a lack of GW support, especially with model-driven rules effectiveness.


Ork armies, Eldar armies, and Guard armies still work just like they always have, and rules are updated every single edition. Orks and Eldar have seen new model releases too not too long ago. Why does GW have to conform to your schedule for us Ork/Eldar/Guard players to keep having fun and playing the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:
You can't deny that the support for Primaris outstrips that for all other armies by a significant magnitude.


And its a good thing too. If it was not this way 40k and GW would not exist anymore and I would not be able to play my Eldar/Tau/old Blood Angels army in the brand new 9th edition rules against other Primaris/Sisters/Xenos armies. Its a good thing GW are successful as a company, otherwise we would be looking for a new game to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 grouchoben wrote:
I think there has to be a middle ground here right?


GW could help solve a lot of the negativity that has built up in the community


I don't think GW can solve the negativity in the community at all, that is not what GW does. Negativity has nothing to do with GW. I think those that spread negativity should probably look into counseling, that might help them more than what they think GW should and shouldn't do as a gaming company.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 00:32:50


Post by: Argive


So why are they actively trying to band aid stuff constantly and faq their own FAQs?

They could just not do any of it...


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 00:38:11


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Argive wrote:
So why are they actively trying to band aid stuff constantly and faq their own FAQs?

They could just not do any of it...
Because they are incapable of doing anything correct the first time, and some beancounter analyst intern has determined that spending resources to write FAQs is more profitiable.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 00:39:51


Post by: Argive


But negativity is not GWs fault and nor is fixing it... Its all in our heads wanting a fair and good game for our expensive toy solidiers


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 02:57:07


Post by: Hecaton


 Alwrath wrote:
I don't think the hobby is worse off at all. People are excited about 40k, and other races/codex's have seen plenty of releases. Plenty of people are playing factions other than Marines and are winning tournaments as well. What is this toxic GW behavior your referring to? How is Primaris " cancer " when the hobby and people who participate in modeling, painting, playing, are having fun with 40k because they are successful as a company? How are Primaris players " a threat " to your enjoyment? How is playing with older models against new models when even the old models are UPDATED WITH UPDATED RULES every single edition a bad thing? Some people would not purchase new models for nostalgic reason's or because they like the current range better and do not want it to change, so why do you think you are their spokesperson all of a sudden? Why are Primaris army people " mindless purchasers " ? I bought a Primaris army because its fun, looks cool and is fun to play, which im sure alot of people had the same reasons as I did. My decision to purchase was not mindless, so why should us Primaris players believe your opinion on our purchases and army matter?


Primaris are cancer because it's Space Marines sucking up more and more of the development time and story focus from other parts of the setting, to the detriment of the whole, just like a tumor sucks resources from its host.

 Alwrath wrote:
Meanwhile let us 40k gamers keep having fun rolling dice, playing games with old models with updated rules vs new shiny Primaris in 9th edition, without you.


The issue is if we can't get a fair fight with Primaris vs. some other army, then it's not "having fun rolling dice."



 Alwrath wrote:
Ork armies, Eldar armies, and Guard armies still work just like they always have, and rules are updated every single edition. Orks and Eldar have seen new model releases too not too long ago. Why does GW have to conform to your schedule for us Ork/Eldar/Guard players to keep having fun and playing the game?


These armies have lost choices, actually, like any sort of variation in their HQ's. Meanwhile marines are sitting on Primaris Lt. #3489034730. If a player looks at that, and sees how the faction they're a fan of is treated compared to Primaris/Space Marines, they're going to see a discrepancy, and if they have any self-respect that discrepancy isn't going to endear them to GW.


 Alwrath wrote:
And its a good thing too. If it was not this way 40k and GW would not exist anymore and I would not be able to play my Eldar/Tau/old Blood Angels army in the brand new 9th edition rules against other Primaris/Sisters/Xenos armies. Its a good thing GW are successful as a company, otherwise we would be looking for a new game to play.


No, 40k would not have died if your favorite faction wasn't given overweening support.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 03:20:10


Post by: Daedalus81


Hecaton wrote:

The issue is if we can't get a fair fight with Primaris vs. some other army, then it's not "having fun rolling dice."


And yet people continue to beat them. Anyone else remember when Outriders were "insane" (nineteen attacks!)? Where are they to be found? BGV are "unstoppable", but they're losing games. Even a few lists with 6 Eradicators went 2-3 at the Labor Day GT.

Marines are still the strongest out there, but people are capable of having a fun and engaging battle against them.

These armies have lost choices, actually, like any sort of variation in their HQ's. Meanwhile marines are sitting on Primaris Lt. #3489034730. If a player looks at that, and sees how the faction they're a fan of is treated compared to Primaris/Space Marines, they're going to see a discrepancy, and if they have any self-respect that discrepancy isn't going to endear them to GW.


You may want to take a stroll through legends to see what marines have lost for units. Do you think that extra generic LT has added anything to marines?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 03:44:09


Post by: Argive


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

The issue is if we can't get a fair fight with Primaris vs. some other army, then it's not "having fun rolling dice."


And yet people continue to beat them. Anyone else remember when Outriders were "insane" (nineteen attacks!)? Where are they to be found? BGV are "unstoppable", but they're losing games. Even a few lists with 6 Eradicators went 2-3 at the Labor Day GT.

Marines are still the strongest out there, but people are capable of having a fun and engaging battle against them.

These armies have lost choices, actually, like any sort of variation in their HQ's. Meanwhile marines are sitting on Primaris Lt. #3489034730. If a player looks at that, and sees how the faction they're a fan of is treated compared to Primaris/Space Marines, they're going to see a discrepancy, and if they have any self-respect that discrepancy isn't going to endear them to GW.


You may want to take a stroll through legends to see what marines have lost for units. Do you think that extra generic LT has added anything to marines?


I think that's kind of the point... New models that add nothing functional to the game/faction, are astheticaly the same as its predecessor... and yet.....


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 03:58:12


Post by: Alwrath


Spoiler:
Hecaton wrote:
 Alwrath wrote:
I don't think the hobby is worse off at all. People are excited about 40k, and other races/codex's have seen plenty of releases. Plenty of people are playing factions other than Marines and are winning tournaments as well. What is this toxic GW behavior your referring to? How is Primaris " cancer " when the hobby and people who participate in modeling, painting, playing, are having fun with 40k because they are successful as a company? How are Primaris players " a threat " to your enjoyment? How is playing with older models against new models when even the old models are UPDATED WITH UPDATED RULES every single edition a bad thing? Some people would not purchase new models for nostalgic reason's or because they like the current range better and do not want it to change, so why do you think you are their spokesperson all of a sudden? Why are Primaris army people " mindless purchasers " ? I bought a Primaris army because its fun, looks cool and is fun to play, which im sure alot of people had the same reasons as I did. My decision to purchase was not mindless, so why should us Primaris players believe your opinion on our purchases and army matter?


Primaris are cancer because it's Space Marines sucking up more and more of the development time and story focus from other parts of the setting, to the detriment of the whole, just like a tumor sucks resources from its host.

 Alwrath wrote:
Meanwhile let us 40k gamers keep having fun rolling dice, playing games with old models with updated rules vs new shiny Primaris in 9th edition, without you.


The issue is if we can't get a fair fight with Primaris vs. some other army, then it's not "having fun rolling dice."



 Alwrath wrote:
Ork armies, Eldar armies, and Guard armies still work just like they always have, and rules are updated every single edition. Orks and Eldar have seen new model releases too not too long ago. Why does GW have to conform to your schedule for us Ork/Eldar/Guard players to keep having fun and playing the game?


These armies have lost choices, actually, like any sort of variation in their HQ's. Meanwhile marines are sitting on Primaris Lt. #3489034730. If a player looks at that, and sees how the faction they're a fan of is treated compared to Primaris/Space Marines, they're going to see a discrepancy, and if they have any self-respect that discrepancy isn't going to endear them to GW.


 Alwrath wrote:
And its a good thing too. If it was not this way 40k and GW would not exist anymore and I would not be able to play my Eldar/Tau/old Blood Angels army in the brand new 9th edition rules against other Primaris/Sisters/Xenos armies. Its a good thing GW are successful as a company, otherwise we would be looking for a new game to play.


No, 40k would not have died if your favorite faction wasn't given overweening support. .


Primaris are NOT cancer because that is the only reason we can play with all the other races in 40k. If Space Marines didn't exist, and GW didn't make any money, we wouldn't be playing the game anymore AT ALL. Space Marines HAVE to succeed to keep GW going as a company. No more company? No more Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, you get the point now?

My Primaris have been tabled by turn 3 with opponent's armies. Obviously they know something you dont.

When did 40k " die "? Thousands of players are playing and enjoying 40k right now, and the game is certainly not " dead " like you claim. Stop spreading misinformation. If you dont like 40k, play a different game. Let us veteran 40k players continue to have fun, roll dice, have our beers, and play the game.



GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 04:32:54


Post by: ccs


Hecaton wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
You also have a whole bunch of other people mad at GW for writing crap rules.

Hence, if their strategy is to make people blame each other instead of GW for the state of the rules, it's clearly not working.


It's working far better for them than any other miniatures company. I don't know any other wargame where when the developers write rules the playerbase blames their opponents instead if the writers.


Flames of War (4e) comes to mind. If you play Germans & run a Ferdinand heavy list in Mid-War you can generate yourself some hate. And by mixing DAK units into it you can double the ill will.
1) Ferds are really good. And cheap! So of course there's always the chorus of "broken!"
2) Mixing Ferds & DAK is mixing equipment from different theatres. Sure the rules allow this....
One of these is a bigger sin than the other. But combined....


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 05:44:44


Post by: ingtaer


Time to dial it down, being polite is not optional.


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 08:49:23


Post by: Hecaton


 Alwrath wrote:
Spoiler:
Hecaton wrote:
 Alwrath wrote:
I don't think the hobby is worse off at all. People are excited about 40k, and other races/codex's have seen plenty of releases. Plenty of people are playing factions other than Marines and are winning tournaments as well. What is this toxic GW behavior your referring to? How is Primaris " cancer " when the hobby and people who participate in modeling, painting, playing, are having fun with 40k because they are successful as a company? How are Primaris players " a threat " to your enjoyment? How is playing with older models against new models when even the old models are UPDATED WITH UPDATED RULES every single edition a bad thing? Some people would not purchase new models for nostalgic reason's or because they like the current range better and do not want it to change, so why do you think you are their spokesperson all of a sudden? Why are Primaris army people " mindless purchasers " ? I bought a Primaris army because its fun, looks cool and is fun to play, which im sure alot of people had the same reasons as I did. My decision to purchase was not mindless, so why should us Primaris players believe your opinion on our purchases and army matter?


Primaris are cancer because it's Space Marines sucking up more and more of the development time and story focus from other parts of the setting, to the detriment of the whole, just like a tumor sucks resources from its host.

 Alwrath wrote:
Meanwhile let us 40k gamers keep having fun rolling dice, playing games with old models with updated rules vs new shiny Primaris in 9th edition, without you.


The issue is if we can't get a fair fight with Primaris vs. some other army, then it's not "having fun rolling dice."



 Alwrath wrote:
Ork armies, Eldar armies, and Guard armies still work just like they always have, and rules are updated every single edition. Orks and Eldar have seen new model releases too not too long ago. Why does GW have to conform to your schedule for us Ork/Eldar/Guard players to keep having fun and playing the game?


These armies have lost choices, actually, like any sort of variation in their HQ's. Meanwhile marines are sitting on Primaris Lt. #3489034730. If a player looks at that, and sees how the faction they're a fan of is treated compared to Primaris/Space Marines, they're going to see a discrepancy, and if they have any self-respect that discrepancy isn't going to endear them to GW.


 Alwrath wrote:
And its a good thing too. If it was not this way 40k and GW would not exist anymore and I would not be able to play my Eldar/Tau/old Blood Angels army in the brand new 9th edition rules against other Primaris/Sisters/Xenos armies. Its a good thing GW are successful as a company, otherwise we would be looking for a new game to play.


No, 40k would not have died if your favorite faction wasn't given overweening support. .


Primaris are NOT cancer because that is the only reason we can play with all the other races in 40k. If Space Marines didn't exist, and GW didn't make any money, we wouldn't be playing the game anymore AT ALL. Space Marines HAVE to succeed to keep GW going as a company. No more company? No more Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, you get the point now?

My Primaris have been tabled by turn 3 with opponent's armies. Obviously they know something you dont.

When did 40k " die "? Thousands of players are playing and enjoying 40k right now, and the game is certainly not " dead " like you claim. Stop spreading misinformation. If you dont like 40k, play a different game. Let us veteran 40k players continue to have fun, roll dice, have our beers, and play the game.



Do you understand the mistake you made reading my post now?


GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules @ 2020/09/18 10:53:02


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Alwrath wrote:
Primaris are NOT cancer because that is the only reason we can play with all the other races in 40k. If Space Marines didn't exist, and GW didn't make any money, we wouldn't be playing the game anymore AT ALL. Space Marines HAVE to succeed to keep GW going as a company.

That's, like, your opinion man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I don't share it, I think GW does get money from ranges other than space marines, and would still be profitable if they stopped releasing space marines miniatures. Maybe less so, maybe more soI don't know, I'm not Nostradamus AND it depends on what they release instead, but I'm pretty sure they would still be profitable.