2: So the last few years have been rough for the Xenos. On top of that, unless I'm mistaken about half of all xenos releases have been this recent Cron release. The other Xenos have been left out in the cold.
Insectum7 wrote: 1: Nice graphic. Someone sure put in the effort.
2: So the last few years have been rough for the Xenos. On top of that, unless I'm mistaken about half of all xenos releases have been this recent Cron release. The other Xenos have been left out in the cold.
GSC will be a portion of that also a few years back
In fairness its not just a rate of releases you have to look at. Tyranids, for example haven't had anything in a good while and yet their army is pretty much in a fantastic place right now. There's a few annoyances like gaunts having split heads; and there's a few finecast that are odd they've not been replaced; but by and large the vast majority is diverse and well made modern models. Even some of the older like the carnifex stand up well.
It's like Tau; they might be listed second oldest next to Eldar, but many of their models are still very good. Indeed I'd argue its more Kroot that appear to have aged poorly; whilst your fire warriors still look good today.
Also interesting to note, and I did not know this at all, but slightly unsurprising considering the amount of regiments being supported, until 1999 it looks like Imperial guard had as many, if not more releases than space marines.
EDIT: Ignoring the percentage periods as that data is skewed for comparison, if anything it should be a table of number of releases per faction, not percentage as the amount of release for 40k on a whole is low between 1990 and 93 for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: In fairness its not just a rate of releases you have to look at. Tyranids, for example haven't had anything in a good while and yet their army is pretty much in a fantastic place right now. There's a few annoyances like gaunts having split heads; and there's a few finecast that are odd they've not been replaced; but by and large the vast majority is diverse and well made modern models. Even some of the older like the carnifex stand up well.
It's like Tau; they might be listed second oldest next to Eldar, but many of their models are still very good. Indeed I'd argue its more Kroot that appear to have aged poorly; whilst your fire warriors still look good today.
3rd, and not by a lot, Nids are only a little behind. Good old imperial guard are second.
The biggest surprise for me is how old dark eldar stuff is comparatively. I would have guessed orks would be way freaking older.
Otherwise, no real surprises here. The primaris relaunch has been roughly 4x the size of the sisters or necron launches, and since 2017 the proportion of marines vs everyone else has skyrocketed.
Pretty neat graphic. Really puts the recent lack of love Xenos have gotten as a whole into context.
I will say though, that despite the average age of some factions, their models hold up really well in comparison to others. The early 10s springs to mind as a time when the minis released still look good today AND are multipart kits offering a huge level of customizability like Dark Eldar or Orks.
Daedalus81 wrote: lol, so it looks like people should be mad at Chaos for chewing up Xenos slots instead of marines.
Why? they got more stuff at the start of 8th but about the same amount as marines. Then marines continued on to be the Subfaction with the most realeases for all of 8th and now 9th too.
Daedalus81 wrote: lol, so it looks like people should be mad at Chaos for chewing up Xenos slots instead of marines.
Why? they got more stuff at the start of 8th but about the same amount as marines. Then marines continued on to be the Subfaction with the most realeases for all of 8th and now 9th too.
The trend for marines over the past 16 years has been seemingly consistent. There's an uptick for Imperium ( Sisters ) and Chaos.
Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
I started the hobby in the late 90s when orks got a ton of new releases and each one of those green squares in the graphic actually meant a different unit.
Blackie wrote: Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
They're very different models. How should we view Intercessors, Incursors, Infiltrators, and Assault Intercessors? They're all the same model with different guns.
The trend for marines over the past 16 years has been seemingly consistent. There's an uptick for Imperium ( Sisters ) and Chaos.
Spoiler:
1/4 of all releases still feels like too much for a subfaction, and that combines with their absurd powerlevel at the end of 8th is probably what causes that much complaints.
Marines get about the same amount of releases than whole superfactions (Chaos,Xenos), even more sometimes.
Another aspect regarding number of releases is that it doesn't tell you whether it's for a new unit or just a remake/re-release of an already existing model.
e.g. Dark Eldar have had a number of "releases", but not a single new unit in over a decade now.
Someone needs to do another analysis where they gauge wether multiple unit buildl box sets are treated as 1 release, or multiple, and whether this has been consistently applied across the years now....
Were the dark angel terminators classed as 1x release or 3x for example?
vipoid wrote: Another aspect regarding number of releases is that it doesn't tell you whether it's for a new unit or just a remake/re-release of an already existing model.
e.g. Dark Eldar have had a number of "releases", but not a single new unit in over a decade now.
That said it can be complex. The Hive Tyrant got a rework and added plastic wings, which for the majority is like a new model in terms of what it offered to people. Similarly some infantry get new sculpts along with new weapon and upgrade options. So whilst it is a "replacement" it offers new ways to play and use them.
Plus I think eventually most armies end up at a size where there just isn't room to add much else without repeating what the army already offers or only offering new unique solos/heroes etc....
vipoid wrote: Another aspect regarding number of releases is that it doesn't tell you whether it's for a new unit or just a remake/re-release of an already existing model.
e.g. Dark Eldar have had a number of "releases", but not a single new unit in over a decade now.
That said it can be complex. The Hive Tyrant got a rework and added plastic wings, which for the majority is like a new model in terms of what it offered to people. Similarly some infantry get new sculpts along with new weapon and upgrade options. So whilst it is a "replacement" it offers new ways to play and use them.
Plus I think eventually most armies end up at a size where there just isn't room to add much else without repeating what the army already offers or only offering new unique solos/heroes etc....
Doesn't seem to have stopped Space Marines from expanding ....
Far as 'Nids go - They are in a decent place, but they've lost a few cool units due to "no model" or because FW doesn't want to support them. I would love to see a Shrike kit, a "Doom" kit, some of the current kits built out to actually have all the proper weapons options on the sprues, and then there's a small host of kits that just really need new sculpts. I also think they could use something in between the Warrior and the Carnifex, as well as a few other odds and ends to completely round them out.
That said, they're a lot better off than pretty much all the Eldar as well as other things like Guard infantry ...
1/4 of all releases still feels like too much for a subfaction, and that combines with their absurd powerlevel at the end of 8th is probably what causes that much complaints.
Marines get about the same amount of releases than whole superfactions (Chaos,Xenos), even more sometimes.
Why, they are the most played one. That is like saying that football in europe gets too much attention in TV, adds and scholarships for players.
And lets better not get in to another power level argument here, when the top lists are full of harlis, demons, custodes, orks etc and marines don't even make it to 50% win rate.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Someone needs to do another analysis where they gauge wether multiple unit buildl box sets are treated as 1 release, or multiple, and whether this has been consistently applied across the years now....
Were the dark angel terminators classed as 1x release or 3x for example?
Since AdMech has 7 for 2020 it looks like multis are probably counted separately ( unless I forgot some models ).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Someone needs to do another analysis where they gauge wether multiple unit buildl box sets are treated as 1 release, or multiple, and whether this has been consistently applied across the years now....
Were the dark angel terminators classed as 1x release or 3x for example?
Since AdMech has 7 for 2020 it looks like multis are probably counted separately ( unless I forgot some models ).
Which, if that is the case, the analysis is not consistent if the comment about the ork buggies is in fact correct.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Which, if that is the case, the analysis is not consistent if the comment about the ork buggies is in fact correct.
Not sure what you mean? Buggies are not multi-kit.
They may not be called buggies, I meant the dragstas etc, and I thought they were 1x kit... Looks like I was wrong.
Yea, the treatment of multi-kits and such could be argued. People could debate for pages on what the right view of the data should be. This is at least the most open data set, at least.
The data won't really change people's minds anyway. More just a fun thing to look at.
ccs wrote: SoB average age of kit being 5 years old - LOL.
Proof that you can make statistics tell any lue you want....
I don't know how many old models are left in the new book, but given that their other releases were '97 and '04 the metric seems plausible. Again I'm sure people could debate all day what the right weight of models should be.
ccs wrote: SoB average age of kit being 5 years old - LOL.
Proof that you can make statistics tell any lue you want....
Well, yes. There are various ministorium kits from 2nd Ed and the 2003 Witch Hunter book that are still used by them and under the SOB tab on the GW site, thus pulling the average down. Those missionary and preacher models are from their first codex release in 1997.
"other Imperium" is a disappointing category though, I assume it covers things like assassins, inquisitors etc. and more recently Custodes and SOS.
I wonder if GK are covered by "Other Imperium" or by "Space Marine chapters", I expect by SM chapters, but other Imperium seems more appropriate. Especially in the days of it being Daemonhunters rather than GKs as a faction.
Also, worth remembering that the space marine data is partly skewed, there's some very old kits, namely special characters that will drag the average age up considerably. Bikes, attack bikes, land speeders, even the original land raider (not the now plastic crusader as such) and predator are old kits now, the predator is 17 years old...
Take out all of those, well any kit that's over 15 years old now and that average age would surely be under 5.
Interesting data, the average age metric isn't really that useful though...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Also, worth remembering that the space marine data is partly skewed, there's some very old kits, namely special characters that will drag the average age up considerably. Bikes, attack bikes, land speeders, even the original land raider (not the now plastic crusader as such) and predator are old kits now, the predator is 17 years old...
Take out all of those, well any kit that's over 15 years old now and that average age would surely be under 5.
A more useful metric would probably what percentage of models were originally released in plastic,metal or finecast.
DoomMouse wrote:Where did this come from out of interest, was it made by yourself OP?
JNAProductions wrote:Good info. Thanks for letting us know, BCB, and thanks to whoever made it! (If that's you, BCB, extra thanks!)
I take no credit for creating this, just something I came across on my internet travels. I wish I did know who made it so I could credit them properly.
To the folks talking about Space Marines being constant as a percentage of releases over time and saying that makes sense; I would argue that it doesn't. If you look at megafactions you may see that behavior somewhat with the others, but drilling down to any individual army, you don't get a hint of that behavior. And why should you? You're replacing/adding constantly; at some point, you should be done for awhile. That hasn't happened with Marines, and that's the whole point of the issue for most folks.
Marines went through a number of expansions into things like Deathwatch, SW, flyers, and so on. The past several years hasn't just been the same marines over and over again.
Are the 30K plastics in here? ( Now that I think about it the reason for Primaris as a lore item is so they didn't run over 30K as a game itself...just conjecture ) There's also a ridiculous number of marines that were just singular nothing burger characters. Are those in this?
Marines caught a new aesthetic and GW very clearly relies on their sales to keep things going. We're always going to see more marines - BA, SW, and DA all have models that need redoing. GK ( if you count them as marines ).
So once you fill that 30% or so the rest is whatever else GW is going to put into the schedule. That just seems like the fact of life we're going to be ( and have been ) living with.
ccs wrote: SoB average age of kit being 5 years old - LOL.
Proof that you can make statistics tell any lue you want....
It's also a little unclear exactly what one box represents here.
Sisters in 2004 for instance have 17 boxes - which is roughly one box per individual model sculpt (i.e. two sisters with stormbolters = 2 boxes). But this doesn't match with the number of boxes for sisters in 1997, nor does it match with the space marines 7 boxes in 2004 (representing six models, one vehicle, a multi-model command squad and six-man veteran squad IIRC).
Slightly off topic, but I do wonder how much the income of 40k (and thus space marines) supplements the other games in terms of R&D etc. I know AoS is fairly popular, but with the amount of kits, and extravagant expensive to design and produce kits at that, I can't really believe they are making much of a profit on it, unless the development funds are siphoned over from other games.
Daedalus81 wrote: Marines went through a number of expansions into things like Deathwatch, SW, flyers, and so on. The past several years hasn't just been the same marines over and over again.
Marines caught a new aesthetic and GW very clearly relies on their sales to keep things going. We're always going to see more marines - BA, SW, and DA all have models that need redoing. GK ( if you count them as marines ).
*apologies for the truncated quote*
If you do any of that for any other army, you also greatly grow their TAM too. Maybe picking another army for that treatment is the best business decision, maybe picking Marines gives you the most bang for your buck. GW doesn't know because they've only ever done it for Marines.
Overread wrote:In fairness its not just a rate of releases you have to look at. Tyranids, for example haven't had anything in a good while and yet their army is pretty much in a fantastic place right now. There's a few annoyances like gaunts having split heads; and there's a few finecast that are odd they've not been replaced; but by and large the vast majority is diverse and well made modern models. Even some of the older like the carnifex stand up well.
It's like Tau; they might be listed second oldest next to Eldar, but many of their models are still very good. Indeed I'd argue its more Kroot that appear to have aged poorly; whilst your fire warriors still look good today.
Not only that, but how much in proportion is plastic vs metal/resin. Tyranids are at a high proportion of plastic to resin when compared to Eldar, for example. Most of those plastic kits were made relatively early on, which makes it easier to have a good old line.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:Slightly off topic, but I do wonder how much the income of 40k (and thus space marines) supplements the other games in terms of R&D etc. I know AoS is fairly popular, but with the amount of kits, and extravagant expensive to design and produce kits at that, I can't really believe they are making much of a profit on it, unless the development funds are siphoned over from other games.
Honestly I think the reason we see such a high proportion of Marine models is because they are probably at least a third of GW's income, especially when you have the Heresy still running around is which is pretty much just Marine vs Marine action.
Design and production of the kits has also probably gone down a lot as they have converted over to more digital systems. The initial investment is usually the pain point, but when you can CAD all the models, the cost is only electricity, designer time, and naturally depreciating assets.
ccs wrote: SoB average age of kit being 5 years old - LOL.
Proof that you can make statistics tell any lue you want....
It's also a little unclear exactly what one box represents here.
Sisters in 2004 for instance have 17 boxes - which is roughly one box per individual model sculpt (i.e. two sisters with stormbolters = 2 boxes). But this doesn't match with the number of boxes for sisters in 1997, nor does it match with the space marines 7 boxes in 2004 (representing six models, one vehicle, a multi-model command squad and six-man veteran squad IIRC).
Yeah, a bit odd. Each box seems to be one article sold by GW, but when one article contains multiple charcters they count each one separately. Makes me wonder how they count stuff like scarabs/warriors or gaunts/reapers.
This seems a bit silly, half these marine releases are aluminum mold character sprues that come in a booster pack. Those are much lower cost investment than a steel mold used for the models that come in a box.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is a chicken and egg thing. At this point I don't think it would ever change, because they'll forever be the "protagonist" of the universe.
But you can check, if at the time of some xeno army, getting a new plastic model line, and getting new powerful rules, out sold marines. Did eldar when they had their soup lists with all the jetbikes and undercosted lords of war outsell marines?
If yes, then this means that with support any army can be made popular, or just or more popular then marines. If not, then this means that marines , are special, and that the majority of players do want marines to play with, which makes supporting them with new models lines a sensible thing to do for model making company.
I mean McDonalds can love its vegan customers, but it ain't going to sacrifice its meat eaters to make them happy. And if it would try it, it would probably end really bad for the company.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is a chicken and egg thing. At this point I don't think it would ever change, because they'll forever be the "protagonist" of the universe.
But you can check, if at the time of some xeno army, getting a new plastic model line, and getting new powerful rules, out sold marines. Did eldar when they had their soup lists with all the jetbikes and undercosted lords of war outsell marines?
If yes, then this means that with support any army can be made popular, or just or more popular then marines. If not, then this means that marines , are special, and that the majority of players do want marines to play with, which makes supporting them with new models lines a sensible thing to do for model making company.
I mean McDonalds can love its vegan customers, but it ain't going to sacrifice its meat eaters to make them happy. And if it would try it, it would probably end really bad for the company.
Eldar havnt had equal support as marines in forever.
Blackie wrote: Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
They're very different models. How should we view Intercessors, Incursors, Infiltrators, and Assault Intercessors? They're all the same model with different guns.
We disagree then. Infantry specialists have always been different units, with specific roles and unique abilities and still are. Buggies are different only since that release, and they really are the exact same unit with (slightly) different weapons.
Statelines of infantries should be pretty similar, but when a few vehicles share the same stateline is not the same: it's a redundancy that could be avoided. SM have tons of dreads, with different loadouts and unique sculpts but they're all dreads. They could easily all be merged into the same datasheet, or two at most.
I'd never say that boyz, kommandos, stormboyz, tankbustas and lootas are the same models with different guns. And yet some of those units have actually the exact same combination of weapons.
Blackie wrote: Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
They're very different models. How should we view Intercessors, Incursors, Infiltrators, and Assault Intercessors? They're all the same model with different guns.
We disagree then. Infantry specialists have always been different units, with specific roles and unique abilities and still are. Buggies are different only since that release, and they really are the exact same unit with (slightly) different weapons.
Statelines of infantries should be pretty similar, but when a few vehicles share the same stateline is not the same: it's a redundancy that could be avoided. SM have tons of dreads, with different loadouts and unique sculpts but they're all dreads. They could easily all be merged into the same datasheet, or two at most.
I'd never say that boyz, kommandos, stormboyz, tankbustas and lootas are the same models with different guns. And yet some of those units have actually the exact same combination of weapons.
Boyz, Kommandos, TBs all occupy different roles on the battlefield. I think considering all the new buggy weapons "slightly" different as a bit of a stretch.
I don't care how one might want to cut the data up as long as the logic is equally applied. If all buggies are "one" then all Intercessor types are "one". And that isn't to defend marines - its a consistency thing.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Slightly off topic, but I do wonder how much the income of 40k (and thus space marines) supplements the other games in terms of R&D etc. I know AoS is fairly popular, but with the amount of kits, and extravagant expensive to design and produce kits at that, I can't really believe they are making much of a profit on it, unless the development funds are siphoned over from other games.
A buddy of mine is the Manager of a Warhammer store near me. At least in our region Marines sell better than all of AoS, and most 40k sales are for marines.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is a chicken and egg thing. At this point I don't think it would ever change, because they'll forever be the "protagonist" of the universe.
But you can check, if at the time of some xeno army, getting a new plastic model line, and getting new powerful rules, out sold marines. Did eldar when they had their soup lists with all the jetbikes and undercosted lords of war outsell marines?
If yes, then this means that with support any army can be made popular, or just or more popular then marines. If not, then this means that marines , are special, and that the majority of players do want marines to play with, which makes supporting them with new models lines a sensible thing to do for model making company.
there are no numbers available, the only ones we have came from the Chapterhouse Law suit were GW made some numbers public to support their case
and those showed that the overall model sales of a faction was directly related to the release of new boxes and new rules
so with Marines get more often new rules (because there are more Marine subfactions) and more models (because there are more subfactions), while at the same point most Marine releases can be used for all of the subfactions, Marines sell more models
from what we have seen, if Eldar would get the number of constant releases over time, models and rules, they would also sell
Blackie wrote: Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
They're very different models. How should we view Intercessors, Incursors, Infiltrators, and Assault Intercessors? They're all the same model with different guns.
We disagree then. Infantry specialists have always been different units, with specific roles and unique abilities and still are. Buggies are different only since that release, and they really are the exact same unit with (slightly) different weapons.
Statelines of infantries should be pretty similar, but when a few vehicles share the same stateline is not the same: it's a redundancy that could be avoided. SM have tons of dreads, with different loadouts and unique sculpts but they're all dreads. They could easily all be merged into the same datasheet, or two at most.
I'd never say that boyz, kommandos, stormboyz, tankbustas and lootas are the same models with different guns. And yet some of those units have actually the exact same combination of weapons.
Boyz, Kommandos, TBs all occupy different roles on the battlefield. I think considering all the new buggy weapons "slightly" different as a bit of a stretch.
I don't care how one might want to cut the data up as long as the logic is equally applied. If all buggies are "one" then all Intercessor types are "one". And that isn't to defend marines - its a consistency thing.
I'm with daedalus here, buggies aren't just weapon swaps - they are distinct, separate units and each has a different role that they fulfill to varying degree. And they are definitely 6 new releases, not one.
At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
It just gets a little muddy, because not all dual kits are "equal". Immortals and Deathmarks / Lychguard and Praetorians. Most are just weapon swaps from what I can recall though.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
It just gets a little muddy, because not all dual kits are "equal". Immortals and Deathmarks / Lychguard and Praetorians. Most are just weapon swaps from what I can recall though.
Yeah I get it, I'd say a deathwing terminator kit is at least 2, if not 3 kits (normal deathwing, deathwing knights and maybe deathwing command for the third). However, are we classing the stormstrike speeders or gladiator tanks as 3x separate units each, they are just a weapon swap? If they are though, then that is 5x distinct ork buggies.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
It just gets a little muddy, because not all dual kits are "equal". Immortals and Deathmarks / Lychguard and Praetorians. Most are just weapon swaps from what I can recall though.
Yeah I get it, I'd say a deathwing terminator kit is at least 2, if not 3 kits (normal deathwing, deathwing knights and maybe deathwing command for the third). However, are we classing the stormstrike speeders or gladiator tanks as 3x separate units each, they are just a weapon swap? If they are though, then that is 5x distinct ork buggies.
Silly question, endless - have you looked at the buggy sprues? Each configuration has its own sprue, with no shared components. The five distinct Ork buggies - are five distinct Ork buggies!
endlesswaltz123 wrote: At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
It just gets a little muddy, because not all dual kits are "equal". Immortals and Deathmarks / Lychguard and Praetorians. Most are just weapon swaps from what I can recall though.
Yeah I get it, I'd say a deathwing terminator kit is at least 2, if not 3 kits (normal deathwing, deathwing knights and maybe deathwing command for the third). However, are we classing the stormstrike speeders or gladiator tanks as 3x separate units each, they are just a weapon swap? If they are though, then that is 5x distinct ork buggies.
Silly question, endless - have you looked at the buggy sprues? Each configuration has its own sprue, with no shared components. The five distinct Ork buggies - are five distinct Ork buggies!
I'm on your side of the argument here, I'm saying the infographic is skewed and not consistent, I'd also say the 3x marine speeders and gladiators are 3x different releases as well, whereas an impulsor happens to have 3x options so is one release.
Blackie wrote: Number of releases also means very little these days: orks had 6 releases in 2018 but basically just 2, the Wartrike and buggies with 5 different loadouts.
They're very different models. How should we view Intercessors, Incursors, Infiltrators, and Assault Intercessors? They're all the same model with different guns.
We disagree then. Infantry specialists have always been different units, with specific roles and unique abilities and still are. Buggies are different only since that release, and they really are the exact same unit with (slightly) different weapons.
Statelines of infantries should be pretty similar, but when a few vehicles share the same stateline is not the same: it's a redundancy that could be avoided. SM have tons of dreads, with different loadouts and unique sculpts but they're all dreads. They could easily all be merged into the same datasheet, or two at most.
I'd never say that boyz, kommandos, stormboyz, tankbustas and lootas are the same models with different guns. And yet some of those units have actually the exact same combination of weapons.
Boyz, Kommandos, TBs all occupy different roles on the battlefield. I think considering all the new buggy weapons "slightly" different as a bit of a stretch.
I don't care how one might want to cut the data up as long as the logic is equally applied. If all buggies are "one" then all Intercessor types are "one". And that isn't to defend marines - its a consistency thing.
I'm with daedalus here, buggies aren't just weapon swaps - they are distinct, separate units and each has a different role that they fulfill to varying degree. And they are definitely 6 new releases, not one.
Yeah, the basic chassis for each is completely unrelated, let alone the weapons. Statlines differ on some, and CC abilities as well- some do mortal wounds on the charge, some don't, some do base statline hits, others have melee weapons. It was a weird decision on GW's part to toss out the basic buggies completely and replace them with 5 distinct units, but that's exactly what they did. (And the not-a-warboss trike is something utterly unrelated)
endlesswaltz123 wrote: At which point, we go back to what I said earlier, we need to know how this was calculated to confirm if it is consistent or not, as it seems multi-unit kits have been counted as distinct separate releases before, or, don't argue about anything based on this infographic and take it for what it is.
The untrusting person within me could assume this was made by someone with a gripe against the amount of marine releases so has made editorial decisions to make it look worse than it is, which would be hilarious as if done accurately marine releases would still be far ahead.
It just gets a little muddy, because not all dual kits are "equal". Immortals and Deathmarks / Lychguard and Praetorians. Most are just weapon swaps from what I can recall though.
Yeah I get it, I'd say a deathwing terminator kit is at least 2, if not 3 kits (normal deathwing, deathwing knights and maybe deathwing command for the third). However, are we classing the stormstrike speeders or gladiator tanks as 3x separate units each, they are just a weapon swap? If they are though, then that is 5x distinct ork buggies.
Silly question, endless - have you looked at the buggy sprues? Each configuration has its own sprue, with no shared components. The five distinct Ork buggies - are five distinct Ork buggies!
I'm on your side of the argument here, I'm saying the infographic is skewed and not consistent, I'd also say the 3x marine speeders and gladiators are 3x different releases as well, whereas an impulsor happens to have 3x options so is one release.
The Speeders and Gladiators are single kits with options to build 3 (or, if you include the Impulsor, 4 for the Gladiator) variants from one kit. Completely different kettle of fish to the Ork Buggies. Speeder and Gladiator should be one model release each.
Dysartes wrote: The Speeders and Gladiators are single kits with options to build 3 (or, if you include the Impulsor, 4 for the Gladiator) variants from one kit. Completely different kettle of fish to the Ork Buggies. Speeder and Gladiator should be one model release each.
I think they count as 3 here and I'm not sure if they should or not. Honestly this is all too disparate to make any real judgements.
As they say in "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" - the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
I saw this the other day on reddit I think? Can't remember the name of the person that shared it but possibly they were the creator?
I feel bad for Eldar, they were my first 40k army and I love them dearly. I would like to get an Eldar army again but I will be damned if I spend more money on them when they are the same models I originally bought back in 2006 or whenever it bloody well was.
Dysartes wrote: The Speeders and Gladiators are single kits with options to build 3 (or, if you include the Impulsor, 4 for the Gladiator) variants from one kit. Completely different kettle of fish to the Ork Buggies. Speeder and Gladiator should be one model release each.
I think they count as 3 here and I'm not sure if they should or not. Honestly this is all too disparate to make any real judgements.
As they say in "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" - the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
We definitely need the source data to be able to make heads or tails of it, that's for sure.
My position would be that distinct kits are distinct releases, but multi-kits only count as one release, not the number of datasheets they cover.
Gladiator? Storm Speeder? One release each.
Orktober buggy wave? 5 buggies, plus the Wartrike.
I really hope that image will reach GW. They could stop the marine release nonsense for a bit (let's get real, it'll return anyway) and take care of those old as feck models
Does model release refer to individual models or the act of releasing a batch? i.e. could one block include 10 different models?
1990s GSC models are not included.
1990s CSM models appear to be very low.
Not clear on the distinction between CSM and CSM Chapters, but there were chapter-specific CSM models coming out in the early days. CSM Chapter category first appears in the chart in 2000, which would have been after things like metal Berzerkers.
techsoldaten wrote: Does model release refer to individual models or the act of releasing a batch? i.e. could one block include 10 different models?
1990s GSC models are not included.
1990s CSM models appear to be very low.
Not clear on the distinction between CSM and CSM Chapters, but there were chapter-specific CSM models coming out in the early days. CSM Chapter category first appears in the chart in 2000, which would have been after things like metal Berzerkers.
This is pretty, not sure it's accurate.
Similarly, the only Harlis listed are the new ones. I’ve got a pile of old lead that says otherwise.
techsoldaten wrote: Does model release refer to individual models or the act of releasing a batch? i.e. could one block include 10 different models
It appears to be a mix. One block could mean 1 model or a whole box.
The 2004 marine veterans set (5 unique models) appears to have only a single box on the chart, The 2004 repentia and mistress (also 5 unique models) appear to have 5 boxes on the chart.
Multi-model plastic kits are similarly only one box, with the exception of group boxes like the Triumvirate which appears to have three chart entries.
Vector Strike wrote: I really hope that image will reach GW. They could stop the marine release nonsense for a bit (let's get real, it'll return anyway) and take care of those old as feck models
I'm pretty sure GW already has all the data on this, and even if they didn't, the lead time on miniature release is at least a few years and not a "we'll design and release it by May" process.
A.T. wrote: And there were more xenos releases (at least if the boxes are accurate) in 2020 than sisters in 2020 and the 15 years leading up to it combined.
Xenos is not a faction. As a Drukhari player it is as much use to me that GSC and Necrons get releases as it is when Space Marines get them.
A.T. wrote: And there were more xenos releases (at least if the boxes are accurate) in 2020 than sisters in 2020 and the 15 years leading up to it combined.
Xenos is not a faction. As a Drukhari player it is as much use to me that GSC and Necrons get releases as it is when Space Marines get them.
My reply is to be taken in the context of the original question.
Also it is quite a release for the crons isn't it - overlord, royal warden, plasmancer, cryptothrals, skorpekh lord, skorpekh destroyers, plasmacyte, reanimator, new scarabs, new warriors, lokhust destroyer, doomstalker, the silent king, the void dragon, new monolith, the convergence of dominion, hexmark destroyer, ophydian destroyers, psychomancer, chronomancer, new flayed ones, new lord, szeras, the pariah network, and i'm probably missing one or two.
A.T. wrote: And there were more xenos releases (at least if the boxes are accurate) in 2020 than sisters in 2020 and the 15 years leading up to it combined.
Xenos is not a faction. As a Drukhari player it is as much use to me that GSC and Necrons get releases as it is when Space Marines get them.
My reply is to be taken in the context of the original question.
Also it is quite a release for the crons isn't it - overlord, royal warden, plasmancer, cryptothrals, skorpekh lord, skorpekh destroyers, plasmacyte, reanimator, new scarabs, new warriors, lokhust destroyer, doomstalker, the silent king, the void dragon, new monolith, the convergence of dominion, hexmark destroyer, ophydian destroyers, psychomancer, chronomancer, new flayed ones, new lord, szeras, the pariah network, and i'm probably missing one or two.
It's quite possible that I misunderstood the context of your reponse, if so I apologise.
Yes it's a great Necron release, but while it's nice seeing GW do something other than power armour, it is still of no more relevance to me than more Space Marines.
harlokin wrote: Yes it's a great Necron release, but while it's nice seeing GW do something other than power armour, it is still of no more relevance to me than more Space Marines.
Think of it like a queue where the marine releases keep pushing to the front of the line.
So every marine release puts you one spot back in the queue, while every xenos/imperial release moves you one step forwards.
techsoldaten wrote: Does model release refer to individual models or the act of releasing a batch? i.e. could one block include 10 different models?
1990s GSC models are not included.
1990s CSM models appear to be very low.
Not clear on the distinction between CSM and CSM Chapters, but there were chapter-specific CSM models coming out in the early days. CSM Chapter category first appears in the chart in 2000, which would have been after things like metal Berzerkers.
This is pretty, not sure it's accurate.
Similarly, the only Harlis listed are the new ones. I’ve got a pile of old lead that says otherwise.
Still, very fascinating chart.
I would suspect the metal Harlis are listed as an Eldar release since that is what the were in the 90s, no?
alextroy wrote: I would suspect the metal Harlis are listed as an Eldar release since that is what the were in the 90s, no?
Yup, Harlequins were all of 4 units in 2nd ed (Great Harlequin, Harlequin Troupe, Death Jester and Solitaire). They didn't even show up in the 3rd edition Eldar codex (I can't remember if they showed in a splatbook), then a single unit in 4th ed (though in fairness it had the Shadowseer, Death Jester and Troupe Master rolled into the unit and the Solitaire remaining a fluffblurb). It's the same issue with Grey Knights, taking a handful of units and trying to make them a whole armies.
That reminds me. Harliquins started as Eldar models. Then they were added to the Dark Eldar Codex when they update the 3rd Edition Codex. Finally, there were split out into a separate army when they released all the plastic kits. They have had a ride over the years.
alextroy wrote: That reminds me. Harliquins started as Eldar models. Then they were added to the Dark Eldar Codex when they update the 3rd Edition Codex. Finally, there were split out into a separate army when they released all the plastic kits. They have had a ride over the years.
I don't think they were in the 3rd ed Dark Eldar codex (even the 2nd printing one).
alextroy wrote: I would suspect the metal Harlis are listed as an Eldar release since that is what the were in the 90s, no?
Yup, Harlequins were all of 4 units in 2nd ed (Great Harlequin, Harlequin Troupe, Death Jester and Solitaire). They didn't even show up in the 3rd edition Eldar codex (I can't remember if they showed in a splatbook), then a single unit in 4th ed (though in fairness it had the Shadowseer, Death Jester and Troupe Master rolled into the unit and the Solitaire remaining a fluffblurb). It's the same issue with Grey Knights, taking a handful of units and trying to make them a whole armies.
Harlis had their own army list in the RT compendium, and a special call out for army construction when included in the 2nd ed Eldar codex for legacy armies. I could see someone compiling a list to just wrap them into the rest of the Eldar range, but if they are going to flag the new releases separate, I would have assumed they would have also marked the old RT ones as well.
alextroy wrote: That reminds me. Harliquins started as Eldar models. Then they were added to the Dark Eldar Codex when they update the 3rd Edition Codex. Finally, there were split out into a separate army when they released all the plastic kits. They have had a ride over the years.
I don't think they were in the 3rd ed Dark Eldar codex (even the 2nd printing one).
I meant when they updated from the 3rd Edition Codex with the new range. Was that 6th Edition?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Slightly off topic, but I do wonder how much the income of 40k (and thus space marines) supplements the other games in terms of R&D etc. I know AoS is fairly popular, but with the amount of kits, and extravagant expensive to design and produce kits at that, I can't really believe they are making much of a profit on it, unless the development funds are siphoned over from other games.
Latest (unofficial) figure I've read in an equity report from an equity research firm was something along the lines of 40K 65%, AoS 25%, Forge World less than 5%, LotR less than 2% (of total revenues from miniatures).
Vector Strike wrote: I really hope that image will reach GW. They could stop the marine release nonsense for a bit (let's get real, it'll return anyway) and take care of those old as feck models
I'm pretty sure GW already has all the data on this, and even if they didn't, the lead time on miniature release is at least a few years and not a "we'll design and release it by May" process.
Yeah, I know... If they ever did that, it would show up for us at earliest by 2023-4.
Looking at this (and not going into the details because honestly, those small differences don't have much of an impact), the proportion of releases taken up by Space Marines has remained surprisingly constant over the years (only having had a bit of a dip a couple of years ago). The real increases are in Imperium (which basically used to be Imperial Guard and a few other things compared to all the new factions they got now) and Chaos (which saw several new armies split off from it, some being what used to be a single unit being broadened into an army (Thousand Sons, Death Guard), and some entirely new (Chaos Knights). So funnily enough, Codes Space Marines can't be blamed here (even if I personally would count Chaos Marines as Space Marines because in many ways they're the same thing). So really, what should be blamed for the lack of Xenos releases is the increase in non-space marine factions and the accompanying releases.
Dolnikan wrote: Looking at this (and not going into the details because honestly, those small differences don't have much of an impact), the proportion of releases taken up by Space Marines has remained surprisingly constant over the years (only having had a bit of a dip a couple of years ago). The real increases are in Imperium (which basically used to be Imperial Guard and a few other things compared to all the new factions they got now) and Chaos (which saw several new armies split off from it, some being what used to be a single unit being broadened into an army (Thousand Sons, Death Guard), and some entirely new (Chaos Knights). So funnily enough, Codes Space Marines can't be blamed here (even if I personally would count Chaos Marines as Space Marines because in many ways they're the same thing). So really, what should be blamed for the lack of Xenos releases is the increase in non-space marine factions and the accompanying releases.
If marine releases remain constant while new factions eat away from all other releases, you can definitely blame marines.
This just confirms my theory about how the 40K universe is supposed to work.
1st class space citizens: Space Marines! You are the protagonist faction. Your basic infantry shall be better than all other factions as we have discussed at length in other threads and the fiction shall be tailored to you!
2nd class space citizens: Other Imperials! You will be the plucky sidekicks to the Space Marines, there to look suitably awed when they kick ass and be rescued by them when you can't hold the line. You also get speaking roles in the fiction and get to show us how impressed you are by Space Marines.
3rd class space citizens: Bad Space Marines! Because you are bad you are third class, but don't worry you are still space marines so you will still get special snowflake subfaction releases like you are interesting enough to deserve it, and you're still going to get to be point of view characters in some of the novels sometimes! Your job is to emerge as The True Threat and cackle madly before getting beaten up by the Space Marines and retreating yelling "I'll get you next time, He-Man!"
Non-Human Space Scum: Xenos factions, this is you. You are NPCs whose point in the game is to give the Marines something interesting to beat up/save the Imperials from while waiting for Chaos to show up as The True Threat. So you get some visually interesting models but never forget that you are NOT REALLY THE POINT and are not allowed to be a real threat because Chaos is The True Threat. Also, you will not be getting any speaking roles in the fiction, your job on the tabletop and the fiction is to be gunned down in droves by our protagonist faction.
All the dickering over whether the data is 100% accurate is hilarious. This is a discussion forum not a scientific paper and we're damn sure that Space Marines are the protagonist faction so...why even bother haggling over to what extent that is true?
Aside from concerns about accuracy, this chart clearly demonstrates 1997 was the year GW learned they make money from releasing Space Marine miniatures, and to emphasize releasing Space Marine miniatures above all else.
I've seen people try to do average age of models calculations before. These numbers can be read 2 ways. Either GW doesn't give enough attention to these factions, or older factions have sculpts that are enduring and satisfying.
Yeah I think part of the reason Eldar have been so long without updates is because the old models look great.
I think the main problem is the material - if you still get lovely metal aspect warriors I would already have some. As is, it's a project for ebay some day.
alextroy wrote: I would suspect the metal Harlis are listed as an Eldar release since that is what the were in the 90s, no?
Yup, Harlequins were all of 4 units in 2nd ed (Great Harlequin, Harlequin Troupe, Death Jester and Solitaire). They didn't even show up in the 3rd edition Eldar codex (I can't remember if they showed in a splatbook), then a single unit in 4th ed (though in fairness it had the Shadowseer, Death Jester and Troupe Master rolled into the unit and the Solitaire remaining a fluffblurb). It's the same issue with Grey Knights, taking a handful of units and trying to make them a whole armies.
Looks at 40K Compendium 1989
Harlequin Army list:
* High Avatar
* Harlequin Troupes
* Death Jester
* High Warlock
* Warlocks
* Solitaire
* Vehicles and Robots from ANY Army list
Add in the modern units
Which was far more unique units than ANY/All Space Marine Chapter had then - plenty of which have Codexes because Marines!
A.T. wrote: And there were more xenos releases (at least if the boxes are accurate) in 2020 than sisters in 2020 and the 15 years leading up to it combined.
Xenos is not a faction. As a Drukhari player it is as much use to me that GSC and Necrons get releases as it is when Space Marines get them.
That's funny, because the exact same thing applies to SM - when say SW get battle leader or Ragnar, it's about as useful to other SM players as a cryptek is for Dark Eldar one (and before someone says count as, both have illegal equipment in any other SM army, as well as wrong heads/logos - so you might at best use half a body for conversion, but so can DE player making cyborg archon or something from the cryptek). Yet when SW or BA get their single model per year (if not edition) allSM players get to hear whinewhinewhinewhine noises because GW dared to drop something that is of no use to them. Go figure
And what is even funnier (or sadder) is that said whine is always only directed at SM. Not at chaos, faction that easily got 2x SM releases in the last 5 years. Not at Warcry, mediocre skirmish game with more releases than SM (adding another gigantic pile of models to chaos, btw). Not at AoS elves who collectively got more releases than SM over last 5 years, too. Nor any other comparable thing. It's almost as if whinge had no leg to stand on to begin with and was just used as paper thin excuse to bash faction complainers don't like, and if SM had zero releases over that period, some other stupid excuse would come up. Like more paints being named after SM than xenos, or SM models being more muscular than Tau, or something equally inane
Da Boss wrote: 1st class space citizens: Space Marines! You are the protagonist faction. Your basic infantry shall be better than all other factions as we have discussed at length in other threads and the fiction shall be tailored to you!
[...]
All the dickering over whether the data is 100% accurate is hilarious. This is a discussion forum not a scientific paper and we're damn sure that Space Marines are the protagonist faction so...why even bother haggling over to what extent that is true?
Yup, and that's why space marines SUCKED in 6th to 8th editions (only getting good at the very end of 8th) while Tau and Eldar got absurdly broken rules that amounted to autowin for picking the faction (remember 190 pts Eldar Knights and both having more 2+ rerollable D shots than other factions had special weapons?). They were in fact so OP that SM needed 500 pts of free transports just to compete and were usually nearly tabled by the end of the game anyway - I don't know what it is, short memory or complete dishonesty, but every time I see this exact same thing come up I just roll my eyes and wonder what game these people were playing because it sure as hell wasn't 40K...
Irbis: Whether GW's designers are competent enough to make rules for their protagonist faction that work is irrelevant to the point that the faction that is written in all the background as the best, has the vast majority of the models, appears in almost all the promotional material and is in every single starter while making up the majority of the miniature releases is the protagonist faction that is meant to fulfill a power fantasy for their players.
GW often fail to deliver on the fantasy the rules are supposed to provide, because they are incompetent and unprofessional rules writers. But honestly, are you looking at the game as it is and saying that Marines are NOT the protagonist faction? Because it's so obvious!
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I think part of the reason Eldar have been so long without updates is because the old models look great.
I think the main problem is the material - if you still get lovely metal aspect warriors I would already have some. As is, it's a project for ebay some day.
True for the most part. Shining Spears, monopose warp spiders and many of the phoenix lords haven't aged well in my eyes but the rest of the range still holds up. The original warlocks are still some of my favourite models. I built an Eldar Aspect Warhost at the start of 8th and it was having to work with finecast that was the real drawback, not just issues with tabs and flash but also ongoing problems with the models warping in the case if they are stored with any pressure on extremities. I also needed to varnish them as they are more vulnerable to damage than plastics.
I am wondering what GW could do with their new plastic technology though. If they put their mind to it and really invested some creativity I'm sure they could do some amazing plastic aspect warriors. The banshees were fine but they were mostly "the same again, but in plastic" (which is still nice because I found banshees the most problematic models of all the finecast aspects).
A.T. wrote: And there were more xenos releases (at least if the boxes are accurate) in 2020 than sisters in 2020 and the 15 years leading up to it combined.
Xenos is not a faction. As a Drukhari player it is as much use to me that GSC and Necrons get releases as it is when Space Marines get them.
That's funny, because the exact same thing applies to SM - when say SW get battle leader or Ragnar, it's about as useful to other SM players as a cryptek is for Dark Eldar one (and before someone says count as, both have illegal equipment in any other SM army, as well as wrong heads/logos - so you might at best use half a body for conversion, but so can DE player making cyborg archon or something from the cryptek). Yet when SW or BA get their single model per year (if not edition) allSM players get to hear whinewhinewhinewhine noises because GW dared to drop something that is of no use to them. Go figure
And what is even funnier (or sadder) is that said whine is always only directed at SM. Not at chaos, faction that easily got 2x SM releases in the last 5 years. Not at Warcry, mediocre skirmish game with more releases than SM (adding another gigantic pile of models to chaos, btw). Not at AoS elves who collectively got more releases than SM over last 5 years, too. Nor any other comparable thing. It's almost as if whinge had no leg to stand on to begin with and was just used as paper thin excuse to bash faction complainers don't like, and if SM had zero releases over that period, some other stupid excuse would come up. Like more paints being named after SM than xenos, or SM models being more muscular than Tau, or something equally inane
Da Boss wrote: 1st class space citizens: Space Marines! You are the protagonist faction. Your basic infantry shall be better than all other factions as we have discussed at length in other threads and the fiction shall be tailored to you!
[...]
All the dickering over whether the data is 100% accurate is hilarious. This is a discussion forum not a scientific paper and we're damn sure that Space Marines are the protagonist faction so...why even bother haggling over to what extent that is true?
Yup, and that's why space marines SUCKED in 6th to 8th editions (only getting good at the very end of 8th) while Tau and Eldar got absurdly broken rules that amounted to autowin for picking the faction (remember 190 pts Eldar Knights and both having more 2+ rerollable D shots than other factions had special weapons?). They were in fact so OP that SM needed 500 pts of free transports just to compete and were usually nearly tabled by the end of the game anyway - I don't know what it is, short memory or complete dishonesty, but every time I see this exact same thing come up I just roll my eyes and wonder what game these people were playing because it sure as hell wasn't 40K...
I'll have to disagree.
Yes, you are right concerning special chars, these are only playable by one chapter and if you're not playing that chapter you have no use of that release, however, most SM kits are shared between all chapters, especially with Primaris (before that GW released quite a lot of unique units for the subfactions where I would have agreed with you). Even a SW Lieutenant can be easily used by any other SM chapter because they all share the same equipment.
However, no Eldar, Ork, Tau or Tyranid has any use out of the Necrons release.
Also, SM didn't suck in 7th, they were one of the top tier armies. Yes, they got 500points of free stuff, but that was the game at the time. CSM didn't get these 500 free points so they were much weaker. Mechanicus did get 300points of free weapon upgrades so they were in line with SM. Daemons summoned units all day for free so they were competitive. By your metric Tau and Eldar would be the only top tier army in 7th because they didn't rely on free units.
alextroy wrote: I would suspect the metal Harlis are listed as an Eldar release since that is what the were in the 90s, no?
Yup, Harlequins were all of 4 units in 2nd ed (Great Harlequin, Harlequin Troupe, Death Jester and Solitaire). They didn't even show up in the 3rd edition Eldar codex (I can't remember if they showed in a splatbook), then a single unit in 4th ed (though in fairness it had the Shadowseer, Death Jester and Troupe Master rolled into the unit and the Solitaire remaining a fluffblurb). It's the same issue with Grey Knights, taking a handful of units and trying to make them a whole armies.
Harlis had their own army list in the RT compendium, and a special call out for army construction when included in the 2nd ed Eldar codex for legacy armies. I could see someone compiling a list to just wrap them into the rest of the Eldar range, but if they are going to flag the new releases separate, I would have assumed they would have also marked the old RT ones as well.
.
The harlie list even came out before the craftworlds one in RT.
in 2nd ed they also had a unique place in the force org chart of the Eldar codex so you could build an all harlequin army.
You could also build an all outcast and exodite force out of that codex
BaconCatBug wrote: Yup, Harlequins were all of 4 units in 2nd ed (Great Harlequin, Harlequin Troupe, Death Jester and Solitaire). They didn't even show up in the 3rd edition Eldar codex (I can't remember if they showed in a splatbook), then a single unit in 4th ed
The 3e Solitaire was an absurd combat monster on par with some of the 3.5 chaos combo shenanigans (118pts for a 12" charge ignoring terrain, hit first, 12 attacks at 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound ignoring armour, 6+ instant death, 18" consolodate and a slew of other rules). One of the few units in the game you'd want to push into combat with the 95pt 3e holofield equipped harlequin wraithlord...
4e eldar had the single harlequins unit entry and they were copy/pasted without alteration into the 5e DE codex (who didn't have them before that point).
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I think part of the reason Eldar have been so long without updates is because the old models look great.
I was totally in love with Wraithlords as a kid. Still am. I'd buy them now, but I don't, because I am even more excited for what they might do with the models in the future. ( And I also don't have time for another army )
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I think part of the reason Eldar have been so long without updates is because the old models look great.
I was totally in love with Wraithlords as a kid. Still am. I'd buy them now, but I don't, because I am even more excited for what they might do with the models in the future. ( And I also don't have time for another army )
You dont like the current wraithlord kit? I think its by far the sexiest kit we have.
Ive procured almost all of the aspects in metals which was a mission by itself.. The current sculpt Striking scorpions (obviously in metal) are very gorgeous looking kit. Ive managed to get 10 metal lads for a reasonable price but this was over some 6+ months of searching and bidding...
Fire dragons also look neat IMO. If it wasn't for materials I think more people would bother with aspects. As it is currently.. you have to sift through ebay to find the right buys without paying an arm and a leg or stripping a bucket load of gunky paint with no guarantee you will retain all detail and wont end up with deep recesses being perma gunked up... . And once you go through all the work and want to field them they just kinds suck making the whole excerice even less appealing.. Sadly haven't got any any swooping hawks. They seem way too top heavy for metal and I know they will be knocked over and chipped sooner rather than later so its not worth the investment.
1/4 of all releases still feels like too much for a subfaction, and that combines with their absurd powerlevel at the end of 8th is probably what causes that much complaints.
Marines get about the same amount of releases than whole superfactions (Chaos,Xenos), even more sometimes.
Why, they are the most played one. That is like saying that football in europe gets too much attention in TV, adds and scholarships for players.
And lets better not get in to another power level argument here, when the top lists are full of harlis, demons, custodes, orks etc and marines don't even make it to 50% win rate.
How do you manage to find an opportunity to downplay marines in a topic about model releases? Lmao.
I'll have to disagree.
Yes, you are right concerning special chars, these are only playable by one chapter and if you're not playing that chapter you have no use of that release, however, most SM kits are shared between all chapters, especially with Primaris (before that GW released quite a lot of unique units for the subfactions where I would have agreed with you). Even a SW Lieutenant can be easily used by any other SM chapter because they all share the same equipment.
However, no Eldar, Ork, Tau or Tyranid has any use out of the Necrons release.
Also, SM didn't suck in 7th, they were one of the top tier armies. Yes, they got 500points of free stuff, but that was the game at the time. CSM didn't get these 500 free points so they were much weaker. Mechanicus did get 300points of free weapon upgrades so they were in line with SM. Daemons summoned units all day for free so they were competitive. By your metric Tau and Eldar would be the only top tier army in 7th because they didn't rely on free units.
Exactly, a lot of the models released for a specific -= marine =- faction can be painted a different colour and can still be used, with supporting rules and the like.
You can't exactly grab an Orc Warboss and claim it's a necron overlord.
1/4 of all releases still feels like too much for a subfaction, and that combines with their absurd powerlevel at the end of 8th is probably what causes that much complaints.
Marines get about the same amount of releases than whole superfactions (Chaos,Xenos), even more sometimes.
Why, they are the most played one. That is like saying that football in europe gets too much attention in TV, adds and scholarships for players.
And lets better not get in to another power level argument here, when the top lists are full of harlis, demons, custodes, orks etc and marines don't even make it to 50% win rate.
How do you manage to find an opportunity to downplay marines in a topic about model releases? Lmao.
I'll have to disagree.
Yes, you are right concerning special chars, these are only playable by one chapter and if you're not playing that chapter you have no use of that release, however, most SM kits are shared between all chapters, especially with Primaris (before that GW released quite a lot of unique units for the subfactions where I would have agreed with you). Even a SW Lieutenant can be easily used by any other SM chapter because they all share the same equipment.
However, no Eldar, Ork, Tau or Tyranid has any use out of the Necrons release.
Also, SM didn't suck in 7th, they were one of the top tier armies. Yes, they got 500points of free stuff, but that was the game at the time. CSM didn't get these 500 free points so they were much weaker. Mechanicus did get 300points of free weapon upgrades so they were in line with SM. Daemons summoned units all day for free so they were competitive. By your metric Tau and Eldar would be the only top tier army in 7th because they didn't rely on free units.
Exactly, a lot of the models released for a specific -= marine =- faction can be painted a different colour and can still be used, with supporting rules and the like.
You can't exactly grab an Orc Warboss and claim it's a necron overlord.
Not without weapon swaps most of the time, and well, certain factions need so much conversion work (along with weapon swaps) that actually it usually isn't worth the hassle for most players unless it happens to be the specific pose a person wants. You can't give a primaris librarian a plasma pistol for example so you cannot use mephiston (and the none plasma pistol hand is weird on other factions). The space wolves characters are so space wolves you wouldn't use them, and their lieutenant has a power axe... Something other marine factions cannot be give on primaris lieutenants or captains etc...
It may seem like they are useful from the outside, but really they are not outside of some heavy conversions which only a minority of players will do.
Not that I don't agree space marine release amounts have been bonkers but this specific narrative that all successor chapter models can be used easily across other chapters is false.
It's not that hard to just add a few unique special characters and units to your normal marine chapter and play them as SW one game, BA successors another game and then Dark Angels for a third. Just swapping some HQs and an elite unit while keeping 75% of the list or more the same.
Before BA got their psychic awakening they really sucked playing as mono Blood Angels so I played them as Raven Guard for a while.
For a competitive marine player there is more than just some small relevance to models and rules from the other chapter's. If Dark Angels will be the by far best marine chapter you will see Dark Angels of many different colours show up with up to 90% generic marine units and just enough DA specific models painted the same just to make the list playable.
If GW were better at balancing the different sub faction rules then Iron Hands players wouldn't care about what Dark Angels get but that isn't the case.
One thing I noticed that was interesting to me was:
The proprotion of marine released to not-marine releases over the last 5 years has been relatively constant, but there was a massive shift from the old "big factions" to new or relaunched factions.
There's been essentially nothing since 2014/2015 for Guard, Tau, and particularly Tyranids [who didn't even get a character relaunch since 2014]; and Eldar can count themselves comparatively lucky to see one release.
On the other hand, there has been a very sizeable support for the new AdMech, new Custodes, relaunched Sisters of Battle, relaunched GSC, new Tsons, and new Death Guard essentially occupying the non-marine release space.
Necrons saw a major release, CSM and Orks both got a clutch of new models, and Daemons got spillover from Age of Sigmar.
Not without weapon swaps most of the time, and well, certain factions need so much conversion work (along with weapon swaps) that actually it usually isn't worth the hassle for most players unless it happens to be the specific pose a person wants. You can't give a primaris librarian a plasma pistol for example so you cannot use mephiston (and the none plasma pistol hand is weird on other factions). The space wolves characters are so space wolves you wouldn't use them, and their lieutenant has a power axe... Something other marine factions cannot be give on primaris lieutenants or captains etc...
It may seem like they are useful from the outside, but really they are not outside of some heavy conversions which only a minority of players will do.
Not that I don't agree space marine release amounts have been bonkers but this specific narrative that all successor chapter models can be used easily across other chapters is false.
Replacing the Plasma Pistol is not really a problem and kind of less work than some other factions not to do on regular hero models
and Mephisto was one of the more used conversion base for all kind of Marines even as a metal model
same as anyone who wants Marines in Robes or Marines on Bikes just uses Dark Angels and removes the DA symbols
there are not many Marine models that cannot be used for other chapters, mainly DeathGuard and some vehicles
I'm not super surprised and aside from a one off guard character I don't expect even 1 imperial guard unit to be released this year. In a way it's good, means I have little to look forward to.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I'm not super surprised and aside from a one off guard character I don't expect even 1 imperial guard unit to be released this year. In a way it's good, means I have little to look forward to.
Unless AoS has a very dominant year again with more than one huge release (undead are coming in some form, and lumineth are now fully announced so I'm ignoring them) then I think there is room for either guard or eldar to get quite a few new kits. Whether that happens or not is a totally different kettle of fish though.
GW might go completely off what you would assume should be the expected chart and release the whole GK range in primaris including terminators which will then be followed up with standard primaris terminators...
EDIT: Talking AoS, a similar infographic would be super interesting for AoS to see if there is any release bias for that range also.
How do you manage to find an opportunity to downplay marines in a topic about model releases? Lmao.
.
Ok then lets speak about new models. What did most of the marine faction get? A special character if they are one of the named chapters, excluding the BT and CF. That is one faction model through out all 8th ed.
Now marines got a crawling faction model reset, and it is a testament to the strenght and popularity of the faction, that GW can't just do them the same way they do it for other factions. But if someone doesn't want to buy in to primaris or already has a marine army, then 8th wasn't a unit reach enviroment for them as far as new models go. Some limited edition termintor models, and stuff you had to order from Japan, which considering the cost, was something only for the most hard core of fans.
And considering this is a game and the models exist to be played, the rules are important, and their quality can not be ignored. If in 2 months time GW puts out a new tyranid codex, and it has 2 new character units and one unit, and all 3 are something no tyranid player wants in their list. Then does the release really count as tyranids getting 3 new models?
In 8th when primaris came out, only starting players bought them to play with, the regular marines were so much better with their weapon options, point cost and transports etc It took GW almost the entire 8th edition to change primaris units, so much that people actually decided they want them in their armies. And right now in 9th, GW created a situation where both primaris and classic marines are wanted by players, and the choice to buy one, the other or both rests only on the player and what he wants.
And considering this is a game and the models exist to be played, the rules are important, and their quality can not be ignored. If in 2 months time GW puts out a new tyranid codex, and it has 2 new character units and one unit, and all 3 are something no tyranid player wants in their list. Then does the release really count as tyranids getting 3 new models?
Yes, they quite literally received three new models.
yeah and that is 3 more then a lot of factions. Only full resets get a whole new model line. And as others said. Marines are the money makers for GW. GW is not going to replace marine model selling slots, to make xeno ones. 8th and 9th did come with a big model updates or new model lines for non marine armies. Ad Mecha got stuff, SoB got remade in to Plastic, we just got necron, we got knights etc Those are all new model lines, and , again as others said it, this means that GW, to make and sell them they way they do, ate the releases for armies like tau, eldar or d eldar.
I mean what did people expect to happen in 8th and 9th? GW is replacing or cloning, each old marine unit with a new one, often spliting old units load outs in to multiple units. Marine scouts, got split in to 3 or even 4 different units. How were they suppose to drop the primaris line without it taking years? Don't get me wrong, I would have prefered they droped the entire marine line necron or sob style, but that just ain't going to happen. Not when GW still has classic stuff to sell, and marines are their big money makers.
The graphic I'd >really< like to see? 40k releases vs AoS. That game is about 1/3 as popular as 40k, gets far less interest online and is very quiet competitively, yet it just gets absolutely plastered in releases.
grouchoben wrote: The graphic I'd >really< like to see? 40k releases vs AoS. That game is about 1/3 as popular as 40k, gets far less interest online and is very quiet competitively, yet it just gets absolutely plastered in releases.
They obviously went hard with the R&D/design of the factions, with some being designed for years in advance of release now, and must make enough money from the models not to scrap the releasing of those already designed models. AoS has had a long running reboot though, the last 3 years seems specifically intense in terms of releases (and big releases for factions at that).
Yeah that sounds about right. Just a note of interest here - the graphic here makes Chaos look like they've had a big 5 years, comparable to SM. And they have, but 50% of those releases were Chaos Daemon releases, an AoS faction. I get the feeling that if daemons weren't in AoS they would be languishing in model releases.
grouchoben wrote: Yeah that sounds about right. Just a note of interest here - the graphic here makes Chaos look like they've had a big 5 years, comparable to SM. And they have, but 50% of those releases were Chaos Daemon releases, an AoS faction. I get the feeling that if daemons weren't in AoS they would be languishing in model releases.
well if you curb daemons out, you'd still get a gak ton of DG and TS, because gw needs to split factions and sell more rules and more specific models.
Other than that we had the CSM facelift, aka we got now "nearly" all CSM updated to the current era with only possessed and some charachters missing.
Also we got a gak ton of HQ that in most cases are basically an exalted champion but worse with no options what so ever.. (MoE.)
That's funny, because the exact same thing applies to SM - when say SW get battle leader or Ragnar, it's about as useful to other SM players as a cryptek is for Dark Eldar one (and before someone says count as, both have illegal equipment in any other SM army, as well as wrong heads/logos - so you might at best use half a body for conversion, but so can DE player making cyborg archon or something from the cryptek). Yet when SW or BA get their single model per year (if not edition) all SM players get to hear whinewhinewhinewhine noises because GW dared to drop something that is of no use to them. Go figure
And what is even funnier (or sadder) is that said whine is always only directed at SM. Not at chaos, faction that easily got 2x SM releases in the last 5 years. Not at Warcry, mediocre skirmish game with more releases than SM (adding another gigantic pile of models to chaos, btw). Not at AoS elves who collectively got more releases than SM over last 5 years, too. Nor any other comparable thing. It's almost as if whinge had no leg to stand on to begin with and was just used as paper thin excuse to bash faction complainers don't like, and if SM had zero releases over that period, some other stupid excuse would come up. Like more paints being named after SM than xenos, or SM models being more muscular than Tau, or something
I am sorry to inform you that none of your argument holds water.
Let's start by getting the easy things out. Warcry and the models for AoS are a completely different game that GW is developing up and should in no way be considered "at fault" for anything. It is entitlement to think that 40k is the only game that GW has and should matter as GW really needs a more diverse portfolio going forward. Space Marines only sell so much.
I mean, we could just as well say that 40k is holding AoS back because GW is spending too much time on Space Marines.
Even then the Chaos models in Warcry are specifically for Chaos AoS and are far from useful in 40k. You could maybe make some cultists out of it, but those will be very expensive cultists compared to the actual cultists available. In fact, the only one that gains much from this is Slaves to Darkness(AoS) and as an extension some of the Greater Gods of AoS Chaos Gods. So nothing for 40k.
In fact if you insist on the idea that Warcry and AoS chaos models are somehow for Chaos in 40k then we can add ALL OF STORMCAST to the Space Marine line as they are quite literally the Space Marine counterparts in AoS and are actually quite nice to convert into Space Marines. I highly recommend it actually as Stormcast have been getting some really cool models.
Then to Aelves. You do realize that the Aelves you are talking about are various different factions that can't ally much with each other? I mean, I get if AoS players whine about Aelves releases as they have been quite a few(my issue is more that Order is getting too much attention), but in comparison 40k? That's just balooney.
Even then you shouldn't be complaining about AoS or talking about AoS at all as that's a completely different system with its own release schedule. You are not the nexus of the universe with your Space Marines and 40k. There are other games even if you don't play them and a ton of people who do enjoy those games.
To the final argument. To say that Ragnar is to Space Marines what Cryptek is to Dark Eldar is an inane comparison. People have been using chapter specific Space Marine models for ages for very basic conversions whereas using a Cryptek as Drukhari is going for a very conceptual army look. I don't know if people remember this but people bought the Dark Vengeance box sets and spent time scraping the Dark Angels insignia off because the models were cool to use for their own chapters and the silhouette was "Space Marine" enough to fit almost perfectly. Even then a person would be more likely to be forgiven to use their chapter specific Space Marine as a stand-in for another unit(as long as loadout is legal) than Drukhari using Cryptek as an Archon. I mean, at this point we could just say that all of 40k Chaos Space Marines are also Space Marine releases in this comparison because you can make some "half-body" conversions with them.
I'm just going to directly paint up the DV marines as crimson fists. I don't care about the iconography, it's just a fancy squad marking to me. I was annoyed that they put a special snowflake faction in the starter though. Weird choice.
And I agree, Irbis did not present a very compelling argument.
Flipsiders wrote: Total shift in the conversation, but does anyone know what the solitary Admech release in 2003 was? It's been boggling my mind for the past hour.
Probably a techpriest enginseer, or servitors. Both the enginseers and servitors are in the AdMech lineup and primary faction AdMech, but were at the time available to IG [and Space Marines].
Flipsiders wrote: Total shift in the conversation, but does anyone know what the solitary Admech release in 2003 was? It's been boggling my mind for the past hour.
Given that's before AdMech were re-introduced as a playable faction, I'm going to guess a Tech-Priest Enginseer sculpt, though that really should be counted as IG if it is the case.
Looking at the Codex release list page on Wikipedia, 2003 had both Daemonhunters and Imperial Guard v2 Codex releases for 3rd edition, so it'd most likely be something that came out alongside those. Probably the Enginseer, though thinking about it, there may have been some Servitors with the DH release.
grouchoben wrote: The graphic I'd >really< like to see? 40k releases vs AoS. That game is about 1/3 as popular as 40k, gets far less interest online and is very quiet competitively, yet it just gets absolutely plastered in releases.
AoS started from scratch with a big "fail" in the first Edition and needed to get players back
of course it needs investement to get it going because there is nothing to fall back
yet AoS is the better game, as it is more stable, more coherent rules, mini-factions that have consitant design, no real poster boys (while Stormcast have more options than others, some are just leftovers from the first Edi but got not much outside the initial release) and a working App
also, less interest online is not a bad thing, as controversial or bad products get much more interest online than good products
you won't fill pages on dakka with "it is a good game" and "I agree" replies, while the usual "40k has bad rules", "Marines get too much stuff and are still bad" etc. will fill several topics all about how bad the rules/price/design of 40k is and some people defending it
good games with less list building aspects generate not very much interest online in general, so if there is not much going on on the web either means no one is playing it, or there is no need to complain about it online
overall AoS and 40k are examples for Cash Cow and Wild Dog
40k has a big costumer base and just needs enough investment and low afford releases to keep things running
it is going to be milked until it is dead (market growth would still be possible but not without further investment and the company may decide that the investment is not worth the potential growth)
AoS has a low market share but also the high potential and need to investment to increase market share and the potential to become a Star or Cash Cow (more likley a Star as the competition on the Fantasy market is bigger than on the SciFi/Space Fantasy market for 40k)
Flipsiders wrote: Total shift in the conversation, but does anyone know what the solitary Admech release in 2003 was? It's been boggling my mind for the past hour.
Wasn't that the Skullz promotion set of tech-priests?
The Skullz program rewarded on-line/direct orders with xpts/$ spent. Spend between x - Y amount, earn x Skullz pts. Redeem Skullz for exclusive product (some of wich required insane amounts of Skullz).
grouchoben wrote: Yeah that sounds about right. Just a note of interest here - the graphic here makes Chaos look like they've had a big 5 years, comparable to SM. And they have, but 50% of those releases were Chaos Daemon releases, an AoS faction. I get the feeling that if daemons weren't in AoS they would be languishing in model releases.
I suspect chaos is actually under-representated in the chart, it doesn't appear to be including all of the boxed game releases such as the various new cultists, the new terminator lord/sorcerer, etc. And of course it doesn't include the decade of forgeworld heresy releases.
Flipsiders wrote: Total shift in the conversation, but does anyone know what the solitary Admech release in 2003 was? It's been boggling my mind for the past hour.
Looking at the Codex release list page on Wikipedia, 2003 had both Daemonhunters and Imperial Guard v2 Codex releases for 3rd edition, so it'd most likely be something that came out alongside those. Probably the Enginseer, though thinking about it, there may have been some Servitors with the DH release.
It was the old metal enginseer. You are right about the servitors though.
grouchoben wrote: The graphic I'd >really< like to see? 40k releases vs AoS. That game is about 1/3 as popular as 40k, gets far less interest online and is very quiet competitively, yet it just gets absolutely plastered in releases.
AoS started from scratch with a big "fail" in the first Edition and needed to get players back
of course it needs investement to get it going because there is nothing to fall back
yet AoS is the better game, as it is more stable, more coherent rules, mini-factions that have consitant design, no real poster boys (while Stormcast have more options than others, some are just leftovers from the first Edi but got not much outside the initial release) and a working App
also, less interest online is not a bad thing, as controversial or bad products get much more interest online than good products
you won't fill pages on dakka with "it is a good game" and "I agree" replies, while the usual "40k has bad rules", "Marines get too much stuff and are still bad" etc. will fill several topics all about how bad the rules/price/design of 40k is and some people defending it
good games with less list building aspects generate not very much interest online in general, so if there is not much going on on the web either means no one is playing it, or there is no need to complain about it online
overall AoS and 40k are examples for Cash Cow and Wild Dog
40k has a big costumer base and just needs enough investment and low afford releases to keep things running
it is going to be milked until it is dead (market growth would still be possible but not without further investment and the company may decide that the investment is not worth the potential growth)
AoS has a low market share but also the high potential and need to investment to increase market share and the potential to become a Star or Cash Cow (more likley a Star as the competition on the Fantasy market is bigger than on the SciFi/Space Fantasy market for 40k)
AoS is also just a fantastic Green Fields project. With the lore still being built and everything being some what open you can see much more interesting developments than in 40k. 40k is a bit shackled by the weight of its lore(that is very Space Marine centric) so it is harder for GW to do sweeping changes there without enraging the fanbase. They already ripped off that piece of plastic when they gutted WHFB.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I'm not super surprised and aside from a one off guard character I don't expect even 1 imperial guard unit to be released this year. In a way it's good, means I have little to look forward to.
Unless AoS has a very dominant year again with more than one huge release (undead are coming in some form, and lumineth are now fully announced so I'm ignoring them) then I think there is room for either guard or eldar to get quite a few new kits. Whether that happens or not is a totally different kettle of fish though.
GW might go completely off what you would assume should be the expected chart and release the whole GK range in primaris including terminators which will then be followed up with standard primaris terminators...
EDIT: Talking AoS, a similar infographic would be super interesting for AoS to see if there is any release bias for that range also.
If I had to guess I'd say there will be some extra big exciting marine news soon. At which point the whole year of marine releases will continue to year 3. Then I'll shake my head and be like " It's happening again !!!! "
Eldarsif wrote:I mean, at this point we could just say that all of 40k Chaos Space Marines are also Space Marine releases in this comparison because you can make some "half-body" conversions with them.
Well, way back in the day, my Chaos Warband was from a part of a Chapter that had "recently" turned to Chaos, and were still recruiting and following similar training methods. Everyone that was Tactical on up was represented by Chaos Marines, however the "Raptors" and "Havocs" would still be considered trainees and hadn't earned their baroque armor. This was mostly so I could use the plastic Assault and Devastator Marines instead of buying the more expensive metal models. I did add some Chaos bits here and there, but it was obvious what the base models were.
So in my case, my Chaos Marines were partially Space Marine releases!
kodos wrote:AoS started from scratch with a big "fail" in the first Edition and needed to get players back
of course it needs investment to get it going because there is nothing to fall back
It didn't really help that there was little formal game organization at launch and it was basically riding the End Times of Fantasy Battles (which really wasn't doing so good). The GHB is what turned it around here, models had little to nothing to do with its success at this point.
That being said, I think that the models right now are one of the best reasons to get in to AoS as opposed to 40K (that and the almost complete centricity of the Astartes in 40K).
kodos wrote:yet AoS is the better game, as it is more stable, more coherent rules, mini-factions that have consitant design, no real poster boys (while Stormcast have more options than others, some are just leftovers from the first Edi but got not much outside the initial release) and a working App
There are good points to both on which is a better game, that's usually more to taste for most people.
However, currently they have been more consistent about spreading out the love, but one of my biggest problems with AoS for its first years, in terms of releases, was that it was all Stormcast (to be fair it was a brand new army), Fire Berzerker Dwarfs, and Khornate Marauders. Once they got that out of their system, we got... more Dwarfs, but steam-punk style. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Dwarfish character, but there was little spreading out in terms of models for quite some time in AoS. Today they've turned it around and started including old models lines heavily and expanding on those as well.
Eldarsif wrote:AoS is also just a fantastic Green Fields project. With the lore still being built and everything being some what open you can see much more interesting developments than in 40k. 40k is a bit shackled by the weight of its lore(that is very Space Marine centric) so it is harder for GW to do sweeping changes there without enraging the fanbase. They already ripped off that piece of plastic when they gutted WHFB.
Very true. In a way it reminds me of the last season of Enterprise when they knew they weren't going to have a final season. Some of the best episodes and sub-series came out that season of probably any Star Trek line, including why the Klingons in TOS didn't have their ridges. The model designers and rule writers have a little more freedom because they aren't the cash cow, so we get to see some amazing stuff. And AoS has also been a test bed for things they want to try in 40K as well, though some of the lessons haven't properly carried over, imo.
grouchoben wrote: The graphic I'd >really< like to see? 40k releases vs AoS. That game is about 1/3 as popular as 40k, gets far less interest online and is very quiet competitively, yet it just gets absolutely plastered in releases.
Yeah and not just AOS the mini games releases have been absolutely breakneck.
Ive been wondering about this..
We all heard that SM get new stuff because outsell everything else which is fine... But in the same vein I dont see the logic in some random side game releases over major 40k factions lingering in the dust. Someone going to tell me some obscure rando warcry/necromunda/bloodbowl band is more popular and will outsell any given 40k faction?
Marines likely subsidize these expansions. Each one is a gamble, but they don't have to sell as well as marines to be modestly profitable. The more GW can engage more hobbyists at various levels the more future customers they'll acquire for other products.
kodos wrote:AoS started from scratch with a big "fail" in the first Edition and needed to get players back
of course it needs investment to get it going because there is nothing to fall back
It didn't really help that there was little formal game organization at launch and it was basically riding the End Times of Fantasy Battles (which really wasn't doing so good). The GHB is what turned it around here, models had little to nothing to do with its success at this point.
that has nothing to do with game organization or riding the End Times (and End Times was a big success)
blowing up the World and changing from a R&F game to Mass Skirmish ended the support fromt he existing player base
at the same time, the new game was aiming at a different kind of player and/or tried to introduce different ways of playing with no point costs and pure scenario based games (which is pretty common in historical wargames and works very well there but as the main point for GW are easy pick up games which is nearly impossible without point costs this removed the main point to even look at it)
it were tha fan made rules that added point costs and changed the core rules into what was later seen in the GHB to get people playing at all
having the GHB and a new Edition coming with a 180° turn on what the game wanted to be was necessary to rescue it
However, currently they have been more consistent about spreading out the love, but one of my biggest problems with AoS for its first years, in terms of releases, was that it was all Stormcast (to be fair it was a brand new army), Fire Berzerker Dwarfs, and Khornate Marauders. Once they got that out of their system, we got... more Dwarfs, but steam-punk style. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Dwarfish character, but there was little spreading out in terms of models for quite some time in AoS. Today they've turned it around and started including old models lines heavily and expanding on those as well.
because at the beginning the thought that Fantasy Marines are going to sell as well as SciFi Marines without understanding why Marines in 40k sold well
and it takes years to change things on the model side and it is nearly impossible to adjust it mid-production
what we see now with AoS is their what they changed 3 years ago
kodos wrote:AoS started from scratch with a big "fail" in the first Edition and needed to get players back
of course it needs investment to get it going because there is nothing to fall back
It didn't really help that there was little formal game organization at launch and it was basically riding the End Times of Fantasy Battles (which really wasn't doing so good). The GHB is what turned it around here, models had little to nothing to do with its success at this point.
that has nothing to do with game organization or riding the End Times (and End Times was a big success)
The fail of AoS' start here in the States was primarily due to lack of formal game organization. There was constant arguments and discussions about how to organize a game from models to Wounds, to other esoteric things. Everyone I know was playing 9th Age, Kings of War, or stuck to 8th Edition, if they hadn't abandoned the game all together.
While the concept of End Times was great, a lot of people saw the writing on the wall that WHFB was going to be discontinued, and so started getting out while people buying the models. Some great things came with End Times, no argument, but if one believes it won't be there in a year... From there, a lot of people were dissatisfied with how the storylines went, and felt some of the rules mocked everything that happened in End Times.
It wasn't until the GHB came out and the more silly rules (ex: you cannot kneel while playing Settra as Settra does not kneel) were massaged away, that I saw people actually doing things with AoS.
However, currently they have been more consistent about spreading out the love, but one of my biggest problems with AoS for its first years, in terms of releases, was that it was all Stormcast (to be fair it was a brand new army), Fire Berzerker Dwarfs, and Khornate Marauders. Once they got that out of their system, we got... more Dwarfs, but steam-punk style. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Dwarfish character, but there was little spreading out in terms of models for quite some time in AoS. Today they've turned it around and started including old models lines heavily and expanding on those as well.
because at the beginning the thought that Fantasy Marines are going to sell as well as SciFi Marines without understanding why Marines in 40k sold well
and it takes years to change things on the model side and it is nearly impossible to adjust it mid-production
what we see now with AoS is their what they changed 3 years ago
I made allowance for the Stormcast release because it was new. However, the support they gave their old models was literally nothing for quite some time. There were no books being released for the models that were to encourage people to play them. The model side of the game does take time to develop, but a book doesn't take quite as long. It has also been the practice of GW to only do books if there are new models, which didn't help.
