I see this claim made a lot, what does everyone else think? I keep seeing stories that GW is making factions OP on initial Codex releases and then nerfing the products into the ground like right after. Do you think they do this and would you consider this a dishonest campaign?

Also if you vote yes please comment.

Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

Possibly.

The problem is it's very hard to tell because they're so awful at writing rules that they could be trying to make something powerful and still completely mess it up.

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

New units are not necessarily always good.

I'm more in the boat of "rule are too good by accident" rather than malice.

I also wonder if books would appear less broken if they all came out in batches or at once, and didn't get nerfed one by one before the next one came out.

Unnerf all the armies, and I wonder how the game would sit.

It does seem like books are play tested in groups of 3 or 4, and the power level between them seems to be similar. But they never come out at the same time.

Lammia wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

Sorry but if it Talks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck - it's probably a Duck.

I could see this happening once or twice with a small business but for a multimillion dollar company to keep making the same mistakes over and over which just happen to, by coincidence, sell more product eventually we have to call a Spade a Spade.

Trust me when I say the used car salesman didn't sell you that lemon out of naive innocence.

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

Because it isn't advertising, let alone false. GW is terribly hit and miss with new releases. Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been. On the AoS side, Kruleboys (one of the newest factions) are absolutely at the bottom of their own power listing (per the latest metawatch). A lot of the new chaos marine/cultist stuff was a mess on release, not 'powerful to drive sales.'

They've had to re-write rules (Iron Hands supplement was a stellar example, as was the weird can't shoot strat for Salamanders(?)) because they literally didn't understand how people would read and use what the rules they wrote (that was actually in the initial FAQ)

As Lammia said, there's just too many bad releases to really believe 'overpowered' is intentional. They're just flailingly wildly.

Voss wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

Because it isn't advertising, let alone false. GW is terribly hit and miss with new releases. Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been. On the AoS side, Kruleboys (one of the newest factions) are absolutely at the bottom of their own power listing (per the latest metawatch). A lot of the new chaos marine/cultist stuff was a mess on release, not 'powerful to drive sales.'

They've had to re-write rules (Iron Hands supplement was a stellar example, as was the weird can't shoot strat for Salamanders(?)) because they literally didn't understand how people would read and use what the rules they wrote (that was actually in the initial FAQ)

As Lammia said, there's just too many bad releases to really believe 'overpowered' is intentional. They're just flailingly wildly.

And just by coincidence these overpowered releases just happen to sell more products and increase profits?

Poor, naive, innocent GW sounds like the victim here. How could us horrible people dare to consider GW's motives to be anything less then pure?

To think anyone would ever lie or cheat out of greed or to make lots of money...why that's just uncharitable good sir!

Asenion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

Because it isn't advertising, let alone false. GW is terribly hit and miss with new releases. Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been. On the AoS side, Kruleboys (one of the newest factions) are absolutely at the bottom of their own power listing (per the latest metawatch). A lot of the new chaos marine/cultist stuff was a mess on release, not 'powerful to drive sales.'

They've had to re-write rules (Iron Hands supplement was a stellar example, as was the weird can't shoot strat for Salamanders(?)) because they literally didn't understand how people would read and use what the rules they wrote (that was actually in the initial FAQ)

As Lammia said, there's just too many bad releases to really believe 'overpowered' is intentional. They're just flailingly wildly.

And just by coincidence these overpowered releases just happen to sell more products and increase profits?

Poor, naive, innocent GW sounds like the victim here. How could us horrible people dare to consider GW's motives to be anything less then pure?

To think anyone would ever lie or cheat out of greed or to make lots of money...why that's just uncharitable good sir!

Meta chases exist, it's true. But GW sales aren't defined by them. They are a tiny fraction of subgroup of GWs market. I can tell you now that GW were thrilled by their Primaris sales and the fact that most Sisters players went out and bought the new Exocist and Castigator on release also shows rules don't drive new model sales.

Eh, I'm in the no crew. A combination of some new kits being pretty crappy like pretty much every kit in Phobos armour, which they just keep releasing kits and variants of, and indeed some of the powerful stuff is fairly if not more powerful. Like, Harlies were a terror for a good period of time this edition, not a single new model. Model making isn't quite like selling groceries, where you can make some tweaks to cost or such push it's sales. That's what battle forces and bundles are for! Shovel out those poor sellers under the guise of a themed force.

Honestly it feels like GW just having poor balancing vs a very overeager design team. Get a new kit, make new rules that attempt at being fun and fluffy. Whoops they interact with something horribly. Better tone it back a little later on. Tack on the art teams tendancy to just, stack on additional guns to a new kit and it's gonna get muddy.

Guns = Cool.

Moar Gunz = Moar Kool!

cody.d. wrote:
Eh, I'm in the now crew. A combination of some new kits being pretty crappy like pretty much every kit in Phobos armour, which they just keep releasing kits and variants of, and indeed some of the powerful stuff is fairly if not more powerful. Like, Harlies were a terror for a good period of time this edition, not a single new model. Model making isn't quite like selling groceries, where you can make some tweaks to cost or such push it's sales. That's what battle forces and bundles are for! Shovel out those poor sellers under the guise of a themed force.

Honestly it feels like GW just having poor balancing vs a very overeager design team. Get a new kit, make new rules that attempt at being fun and fluffy. Whoops they interact with something horribly. Better tone it back a little later on. Tack on the art teams tendancy to just, stack on additional guns to a new kit and it's gonna get muddy.

I don't know. I see Big Foot riding the Lochness Monster with a UFO in the background with the words:

"Still more believable then Epstein killing himself."

And even Epstein killing himself sounds more believable then these claims that GW purposely overpowering and then nerfing new codexes is coincidence.

I mean why are all the Forge-World models so lackluster?

Why can't we play games in store? Why is GW squeezing out small game stores with huge price mark-ups on their products?

At one point they even tried to make a rule saying you can't bring armies to tournaments unless they are painted with GW's official paint. The company has a reputation for being a little ruthless and greedy.

As the saying goes " The Sun never sets on the Warhammer Empire - cause God would never Trust GW in the Dark."

Voss wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

Because it isn't advertising, let alone false. GW is terribly hit and miss with new releases. Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been. On the AoS side, Kruleboys (one of the newest factions) are absolutely at the bottom of their own power listing (per the latest metawatch). A lot of the new chaos marine/cultist stuff was a mess on release, not 'powerful to drive sales.'

They've had to re-write rules (Iron Hands supplement was a stellar example, as was the weird can't shoot strat for Salamanders(?)) because they literally didn't understand how people would read and use what the rules they wrote (that was actually in the initial FAQ)

You believe everything you read on line??

Asenion wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Eh, I'm in the now crew. A combination of some new kits being pretty crappy like pretty much every kit in Phobos armour, which they just keep releasing kits and variants of, and indeed some of the powerful stuff is fairly if not more powerful. Like, Harlies were a terror for a good period of time this edition, not a single new model. Model making isn't quite like selling groceries, where you can make some tweaks to cost or such push it's sales. That's what battle forces and bundles are for! Shovel out those poor sellers under the guise of a themed force.

Honestly it feels like GW just having poor balancing vs a very overeager design team. Get a new kit, make new rules that attempt at being fun and fluffy. Whoops they interact with something horribly. Better tone it back a little later on. Tack on the art teams tendancy to just, stack on additional guns to a new kit and it's gonna get muddy.

I don't know. I see Big Foot riding the Lochness Monster with a UFO in the background with the words:

"Still more believable then Epstein killing himself."

And even Epstein killing himself sounds more believable then these claims that GW purposely overpowering and then nerfing new codexes is coincidence.

I mean why are all the Forge-World models so lackluster?

Why can't we play games in store? Why is GW squeezing out small game stores with huge price mark-ups on their products?

At one point they even tried to make a rule saying you can't bring armies to tournaments unless they are painted with GW's official paint. The company has a reputation for being a little ruthless and greedy.

As the saying goes " The Sun never sets on the Warhammer Empire - cause God would never Trust GW in the Dark."

I think that's more GW being protective over their IP, too protective, like.... destructively protective, than being outright malicious.

Indeed, why do they make the very expensive FW models so meh, sometimes. In other cases they've been known to be so broken that they get banned in major events. I remember the time when Chaplain dreads were super powerful, but it was only because of janky rules interactions. It's a character, it's a dread. Done, broken powerful model

GW is not consistent in almost anything they do. If you were to try and map out their behavior on any sort of graph, you'd probably go mad. We are programmed to see patterns, but if you see a saint in your grilled cheese that may not mean there is intent behind it.

Perhaps someone could take every new release, each new codex and see if there is any correlation between new kit and power level. It's possible, but i'm certain most releases come with a lotta stuff you don't bother with outside of a collection.

I'm not saying GW does not have a tonne of failings, I just don't think new codexes are intentionally made op to boost sales.

They are, they just aren't always great at doing it. I would bet you everything in my wallet that they thought Intercessors, at the beginning of 8th, were incredibly bullying at 20 points per model.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They are, they just aren't always great at doing it. I would bet you everything in my wallet that they thought Intercessors, at the beginning of 8th, were incredibly bullying at 20 points per model.

Why is the most 'pushed' kit right now, 5 years old?

Asenion wrote:

Lammia wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

Sorry but if it Talks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck - it's probably a Duck.

I could see this happening once or twice with a small business but for a multimillion dollar company to keep making the same mistakes over and over which just happen to, by coincidence, sell more product eventually we have to call a Spade a Spade.

Trust me when I say the used car salesman didn't sell you that lemon out of naive innocence.

Funny thing about the Duck Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

GWs ability to constantly fail to sell a new model due to underpowered rules while overpowering rules for models people already have is all the proof you need to know that GW isn't doing it on purpose.

cody.d. wrote:

I'm not saying GW does not have a tonne of failings, I just don't think new codexes are intentionally made op to boost sales.

So you're ignoring the arrival of the Votaan & the articles on GWs own site deliberately hyping the Judgement token rules and spotlighting the magrails?
Not to mention pts values that were definitely intended to get a fair chunk of this release into your typical 2k matched lists.
You think that was all some sort of accident or something?

ccs wrote:

cody.d. wrote:

I'm not saying GW does not have a tonne of failings, I just don't think new codexes are intentionally made op to boost sales.

So you're ignoring the arrival of the Votaan & the articles on GWs own site deliberately hyping the Judgement token rules and spotlighting the magrails?
Not to mention pts values that were definitely intended to get a fair chunk of this release into your typical 2k matched lists.
You think that was all some sort of accident or something?

LoV were always going to sell, if anything their broken rules put people off. GW rules team aren't marketing; if they were, they'd be getting paid a hell of a lot more than they are right now.

Can some one explain why there are so many mediocre to poor books released if this is the case then?

 alextroy wrote:
GWs ability to constantly fail to sell a new model due to underpowered rules while overpowering rules for models people already have is all the proof you need to know that GW isn't doing it on purpose.

Or they're just bad at it. They're pretty conclusively bad at rules.

Generally I think they write like a pack of over-excited 12 year olds going "wouldn't it be cool if..."

I also think their in-house testing is super non-competitive, and they just don't see blatantly overpowered stuff like liquifiers plus dark technomancer in the DE codex because, despite creating the combo with the "wouldn't it be cool if" mentality, they then only take one in a list instead of cramming in as many as will fit in a 2000 point army.

That said, there have definitely been examples where it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales, eg the eldar wraithknight on it's initial release...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Possibly.

The problem is it's very hard to tell because they're so awful at writing rules that they could be trying to make something powerful and still completely mess it up.

This, just look at the Sister codex. The new hotness was the Castigator Tank and the Paragon Warsuits. Both were absolute trash. The Paragon only got good after getting a point drop and AoC, while the Castigator is still terrible.

Next codex for the Squats will nerf them into the nerf, you just watch

Dudeface wrote:
Can some one explain why there are so many mediocre to poor books released if this is the case then?

What book hasn't made mark in top tournaments upon release? GSC and...?

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Can some one explain why there are so many mediocre to poor books released if this is the case then?

What book hasn't made mark in top tournaments upon release? GSC and...?

Necrons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard (maybe), CSM, both Knights, Daemons, Templars...

Jarms48 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Possibly.

The problem is it's very hard to tell because they're so awful at writing rules that they could be trying to make something powerful and still completely mess it up.

This, just look at the Sister codex. The new hotness was the Castigator Tank and the Paragon Warsuits. Both were absolute trash. The Paragon only got good after getting a point drop and AoC, while the Castigator is still terrible.

Lol
It’s possible it’s a yes.
The rules just suck so much that no one could ever be concluded from the outside

Based on the evidence, there are two options. Either GW purposely overpowers new models on release, but just sucks at it. Or GW is trying to release balanced books and sucks at that as well. So either way, most of what we see is the result of incompetence. It doesn't really matter what the underlying cause is and it makes sense to then just go for the simplest option.

One thing I've always wondered about though is why they would supposedly want to sell more of the new stuff. That already has large drivers to sell whereas their old stuff might need more help. Everyone knows units that have been languishing for editions on end.

Personally, I think that GW just doesn't see balance as all that important and I broadly agree there. At least, as far as sales are concerned. Most of their kits sell based on how they look and their coolness factor. Sure, people would rather not get the wettest of blankets, but even then they'll gladly buy units and armies that aren't that great.

Generally though, overpowered units tend to stand out more than weaker ones. They're the ones doing the most after all. New stuff also stands out more because, well, we haven't seen it before. So if something new is overpowered it really stands out and people are ready again to trot out the idea that the new stuff is purposely made overpowered.

I feel the same way about the poll title, in that it does t match the thread title. I think this is a terrible case of false advertising amd the OP SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!1!111!111eleven

Crispy78 wrote:
That said, there have definitely been examples where it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales, eg the eldar wraithknight on it's initial release...

Do we have any other known examples? The Wraithknight is one, but I don't recall any others where we know there was meddling to drive sales.

Umbros wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Can some one explain why there are so many mediocre to poor books released if this is the case then?

What book hasn't made mark in top tournaments upon release? GSC and...?

Necrons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard (maybe), CSM, both Knights, Daemons, Templars...

Necrons did quite well when they were released. So did knights. And I see CSM at top tables as well. Daemons are still doing well. 57% which is 2nd highest...

You just proved yourself to have no clue if you claim daemons are poor book when they have 2nd highest win rate atm. ROOOOOFFLMAAAAAOOO!

Yea right. 2nd biggest win rate is poor. Hahaha. What? Every book needs to have 70% winrate to not be poor?

Imperial knights 6th at 55% now. Anybody have stats what they were when they were released? (since the win rate early up is what matters for this question. Necron/dg winrates now is irrelevant for question at hand)

Necron did not do "good" when 9th started. Excluding things like salamanders aggresor builds being okey for a week or two, the top was harlequins being a tier of their own, then custodes, followed by orcs, Whitescars and the rest of the armies struggle to be50% win rate, with many not making it in to tier 2. Among which were armies like tau, knights, IG, demons etc.



Or is the good or quite well, limited to being that in crusade?

Asenion wrote:


And just by coincidence these overpowered releases just happen to sell more products and increase profits?

Poor, naive, innocent GW sounds like the victim here. How could us horrible people dare to consider GW's motives to be anything less then pure?

To think anyone would ever lie or cheat out of greed or to make lots of money...why that's just uncharitable good sir!

You might want to learn how to read friend.

New models are pretty often very bad, rules wise.

Either GW is not very good at it, if they try to make all new things OP on purpose OR they are so proficient that it works out on their spreadsheets without anybody noticing a proper pattern.

@OP sounds a bit like you clearly made up your mind already on the topic and don't want to hear other thoughts.

As with all projects a lot depends on what the person wants to do, what he can do and what the company wants them to do.

Some books are release and forget. Put the stuff we think there should for the edition, cover the models we produce and we are done. There is model line resets or even new line being started. Which will always be a lot of work, and by virtue of that. You can get many thing. Things the devs think is "cool" like GSC, and then the whole spectrum of pre nerf Votan and pre buff necron.
There is marines, which are more or less copy pasted. And then there is eldar which never had a bad book, and always end up being super powerful.

But GW does do models, generaly big models that they can cost high, with crazy initial rules. Son of Behmat, the eldar knights, Castellans, Silent king, even when the necron themselfs were meh. The rest seems mostly random or pure studio likes/dislikes. Some stuff like custodes, feels like it is being made in a specific way, so that people can't optimise the army for both games, unless they magnetize everything.

Ah and in general people don't care much, if a faction gets or doesn't get good units. Unless they don't like the faction to begin with. What people do not like is something like castellan, which turns to entire meta in to a castellan meta, and any imperial army in to a first take a castellan army.

Lammia wrote:


'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

This.

I have seen many armies or new, huge and expensive models DOA gaming-wise and I have seen absolutely broken things that needed immediate nerfing to be made playable. Both of these things happening interchangeably tells me the designers have poor understanding of how their game actually works and are just designing things with their gut feeling.

a_typical_hero wrote:
New models are pretty often very bad, rules wise.

Either GW is not very good at it, if they try to make all new things OP on purpose OR they are so proficient that it works out on their spreadsheets without anybody noticing a proper pattern.

@OP sounds a bit like you clearly made up your mind already on the topic and don't want to hear other thoughts.

New models tend to sell well anyway by being new. It's once initial rush is over the sales by power helps to get the tournament try hards to buy them in their chase of "glory"

I think there's a soft connection.

GW has a clear tendency towards power creep in the way they write their rules. This has applied to every edition of 40k and WHFB I can think of. I imagine it applies in AoS but not really played it so can't confirm.
This tends to happen because they make up brand new rules, make existing rules fewer points and fix "problems in the meta" (that existed 9ish months ago when the book was being finalised) but don't go back to fix older books. To that end more recent codexes will "tend" to be more powerful than earlier ones. They'll have more options and get more for their points.

I think GW has this tendency towards creep partly because they want to sell new stuff - and so can't reach some point of "balanced stasis" - where they just sell new sculpts of existing units. They know from a marketing perspective, people who play all the time (which includes the vocal, professional wing) get bored of a stale meta. People like variety and change. I remember when I was playing a lot in late 2018 I got sick of "knight meta", where every other opponent seemed to have a knight. (And in turn, your army had to have the tools to crack knights, or risked being dead on arrival.) It was only 9 months or something - but it felt like 9 years.

I imagine people last year got sick of my DE being top dog for about the same length of time.

But equally, GW doesn't care which grey plastic sells - so long as it sells. Plenty of completely new kits get awful rules. You can end up in a stupid place of arguing "GW has made this new unit OP to sell - but made this other new unit rubbish so it will sit on the shelves until its buffed in 3 years time." Which is kind of dubious as a sales strategy. In the same way plenty of books have been put out which are just weaker than others - or have whole sections that are are mathematically terrible.

Tyel wrote:
GW has a clear tendency towards power creep in the way they write their rules. This has applied to every edition of 40k and WHFB I can think of. I imagine it applies in AoS but not really played it so can't confirm.
This tends to happen because they make up brand new rules, make existing rules fewer points and fix "problems in the meta" (that existed 9ish months ago when the book was being finalised) but don't go back to fix older books. To that end more recent codexes will "tend" to be more powerful than earlier ones. They'll have more options and get more for their points.

Well let's see. ATM it is:

Tzeentch(4th newest)
daughters of khaine(7th)
beast of chaos(old book though got WD update in january/february which was HUGE buff going from one of the worst to one of the best armies...)
seraphon(old book, WD update bit over year ago)
lumineth realm lords(tied 2nd/3rd newest)
vampires(old book with almost year old WD update)
gargants(tied 2nd/3rd newest)
ogors(tied 2nd/3rd newest)
kharadron overlords(old book, got WD update around summer)
nurgle(3rd book in this edition)
stormcast(edition opening book)

And so on.

Half the top-6 haven't even got new book and newest books atm are outside top-6.

AOS is surprisingly light on power creep with newer books. The new slaves might make quite an impact when it comes out properly though. Those punch silly hard. Though points are quite high.

But equally, GW doesn't care which grey plastic sells - so long as it sells. Plenty of completely new kits get awful rules. You can end up in a stupid place of arguing "GW has made this new unit OP to sell - but made this other new unit rubbish so it will sit on the shelves until its buffed in 3 years time." Which is kind of dubious as a sales strategy. In the same way plenty of books have been put out which are just weaker than others - or have whole sections that are are mathematically terrible.

It might look stupid but what player has cash to buy entire army's whole collection at once? Trible feed him OP unit after OP unit rather than make everything same at once.

Depends on what the goal for a faction model line up is . Bad rules for a unit, or worse an entire faction when a new model update goes live, that is droping the ball by GW design studio. Necron are like that.

Primaris being bad and getting a bad after bad update doesn't matter as much, if the end goal is to reset the whole space marine line without getting an AoS style backlash for it.

I can't even imagine how much drive and in studio strenght would someone have to have to convince the higher ups to do something like a plastic krieg squad. Too much it worked for 3-4 decades, we are not going to change it

And kind of a explains why AoS is more in the mid kind of a game. It is true that they sometimes drop the ball hard, because some stuff was not tried yet, by GW at least. But in general it is interesting. And AoS seson system is much better. It actualy makes people change their army set ups and want different unit, which is important for model sells. In w40k you are stuck with armies that just don't cut it or cut extremly well. For smaller armies this means that after buying the initial 2000-2500pts there realy is no entice to buy more. But it gets really bad with the big model factions, like the marine ones. Sure the codex comes with 1000+1 units, but what is worth taking is maybe 4-5 of them.

It would be interesting if GW had something like a monster or walker seson, then a transport seson, then an infantry seson etc Would make people that have those models happy, and those that don't have them willing to buy them.

Jarms48 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Possibly.

The problem is it's very hard to tell because they're so awful at writing rules that they could be trying to make something powerful and still completely mess it up.

This, just look at the Sister codex. The new hotness was the Castigator Tank and the Paragon Warsuits. Both were absolute trash. The Paragon only got good after getting a point drop and AoC, while the Castigator is still terrible.

Castigator is good actually. It's a masterclass in how to drive sales. First you release very pretty, hot garbage units, then 12-24 months later you drop their points that that actually start to appear in comp lists.

Sisters Codex also clearly proves that GW had no clue how original Bodyguard worked on the table (doubly so with multi-model characters) and just threw a "cool/fluffy rule" onto a unit that ended up being a competitive "no brainer" for the first 6 months or so, completely derailing the game in a good number of match-ups.

They also made Paragons immune to damage 1 weapons, because *insert Homer Simpson gif*, but simultaneously fine-tuned their points and rules to become slowely more viable over another year or so of balance datasheet rules they allegedly had planned out in advance?

Don't think so.

tneva82 wrote:

Umbros wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Can some one explain why there are so many mediocre to poor books released if this is the case then?

What book hasn't made mark in top tournaments upon release? GSC and...?

Necrons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard (maybe), CSM, both Knights, Daemons, Templars...

Necrons did quite well when they were released. So did knights. And I see CSM at top tables as well. Daemons are still doing well. 57% which is 2nd highest...

You just proved yourself to have no clue if you claim daemons are poor book when they have 2nd highest win rate atm. ROOOOOFFLMAAAAAOOO!

Yea right. 2nd biggest win rate is poor. Hahaha. What? Every book needs to have 70% winrate to not be poor?

Imperial knights 6th at 55% now. Anybody have stats what they were when they were released? (since the win rate early up is what matters for this question. Necron/dg winrates now is irrelevant for question at hand)

Are they overpowered? Being at top tables doesn't matter, if they compete fairly then no they're not OP.

Flamers are atm pretty much most busted unit.

And 57% which is 2nd highest is well above 50%...And way above armies with 45%. Is it fair to have 57% vs 45% army? If you say yes then your view of fair is pretty bad. (also how much you perform at the absolute top is even better indicacation in general than just win rate)

As is codex: daemons is reason why tzeentch is silly high at over 70% win rate.

GW doesn't need to make Codexes OP to drive sales because the company makes good models that people want to buy. In fact I'd wager the rules actively harm sales of certain models, especially considering how leaky the the rules department seems to be these days.

You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

 Gert wrote:
GW doesn't need to make Codexes OP to drive sales because the company makes good models that people want to buy. In fact I'd wager the rules actively harm sales of certain models, especially considering how leaky the the rules department seems to be these days.

Agreed. I'd say people overestimate the impact rules have on sales of specific models. People that follow the new hotness are a minority in the tournament crowd which in itself is a small minority of the 40K community.

I'd say GWs rules are more a problem of lack of passion for some factions and little engagement with the game from the rules writers. It's not like in lotr where you see the rules writers being an active part of the community. What playtesting achieves is probably corrections of wordings that simply don't work in the current rulebook because I think these have gotten rare since 8th/9th edition while there were pretty common before (see Heldrake formation in 7th that did practically nothing because obviousely who made up that rule didn't really know how the turn sequence in 40K worked). Balancewize the FaQs are more important than the actual codex, which is probably eyeballed without much knowledge of the overall game. In 9th it's possible to compare groups of Codizes with each other that have been released side by side, but there's a divide nevertheless.

When they wrote the Tyranids codex they didn't remember what they wrote in the DG codex because it's just a job and once you're finished with a book you don't look back...

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

If GW wanted to drive sales with rules, they might end up doing crazy things like putting out chaos rules for the Kratos tank (or any of the other lovely new HH plastics for that matter), or stop gatekeeping FW stuff behind the Imperial Armour book/martial legacy tax.

The codex release cycle takes so long to complete that anyone on the back end of it has a lot of making up to do.

And yes, they probably do selectively buff some stuff from time to time.

If GW want to sell things "to the bulk of players" based on being overpowered, the "rules cycle" needs to be much longer.

In the olden days the best stuff tended to remain at least good for years. The bad stuff also unfortunately tended to remain bad. This prompted a bit of "if you can't beat them, join them".

Today anything that looks broken tends to get nerfed in 1-2 months. I doubt GW sold very many voidweavers at all - because it was instantly clear they were getting an axe for their 6 weeks at the top. Flamers are in the same place now. People who sprinted out to buy two Malceptors were kidding themselves and the list goes on.

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

If that was true GW would be making models for painters and builders. Yet all they do with how the game looks, the models are cut etc is not being build or paint friendly. And again painters don't buy whole armies every quarter seson or more often. It may change when 3d printing goes full capacity and the war ends. But hey everyone is allowed to have a view on things. No matter who it is, there is a group of people between 10 to 15% who are buying 80% of all models and out of those a 1-2% are buying 80% of those 80%.

No

We have many codexes that were mediocre if not subpar on release with new units that were just plain bad.

Meta chasers are also a small minority in the grand scheme of things. If GW was all about maximizing profits they'd just release the hot new gak for Space Marines and nothing else.

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

Also its my observation that a lot of people who meta-chase at the competitive end are often fully aware that the meta can shift fairly quickly and because they are only meta-chasing they tend to keep their costs down. So they buy secondhand models off ebay; they buy collections being sold on facebook. They paint strip, repaint or even send the armies off to get repainted etc.... Basically they are generating very little actual money for GW itself. So if GW were chasing the meta-customers it like as not wouldn't be reflected with actual sale.s


Thing is wargames take TIME not just money. Building and painting take time and most people don't pay others to do that for them. So many customers will only have a limited number of armies or even just one army. So if that army has rubbish rules that's money lost from that customer for GW. It's why the old rules system of slow updates was a net loss for everyone - armies like Sisters of Battle and Dark Eldar missing editions over and over again and resulting in fewer and fewer sales weren't translating to those players buying other whole armies all the time. It resulted in them being far more likely to drift away from the game because their army and collection wasn't being supported well.

Warhammer isn't MTG and it can't do a whole meta-chase system and benefit anyone really. Ideally flat balance where most armies can perform well both between armies and within a codex/battletime will produce hte greatest sales. Because you'll have the greatest number of customers open to buying models for their armies. When only one army is outright THE BEST then only collectors of that armywill be charged up to buy it and many people will not just swap and dump for that army.









As to the main question I can cite many examples where GW has had overpowered new models - Slaanesh got overpowered summoning for their leader models when GW updated the leaders (and when the best setup was lots of keepers of the brand new keeper model); Ossiarchs were insanely overpowered with a +1 save to every model in the army with one subfaction. And yet as others have noted for every time GW does that they muck up somewhere else. There's a new model or new army that underperforms; or a big army that sells well that suddenly gets a rubbish hand dealt them.
In the end GW aren't masters of balance and its more likely the fact that sometimes stuff is over or under powered because that's just how they are with regard to balance. It not being helped by the fact that right now every 3 years they throw all the balance work they've done out the window and start over with a fresh rules set.

Karol wrote:

If that was true GW would be making models for painters and builders. Yet all they do with how the game looks, the models are cut etc is not being build or paint friendly. And again painters don't buy whole armies every quarter seson or more often. It may change when 3d printing goes full capacity and the war ends. But hey everyone is allowed to have a view on things. No matter who it is, there is a group of people between 10 to 15% who are buying 80% of all models and out of those a 1-2% are buying 80% of those 80%.

what? GW models are more than servicable to paint, and are some of the better plastic miniatures on the market. Yeah, theres some weird undercuts because of injection molding's 'weaknesses' but theyre still very nice miniatures.

Not for the price, and not when you can buy the resin ones for 1/3 or 1/2 of a price. the new IG for example were being mass printed here, before the official premier of the models by GW. Which I found extremly funny by the way.
And we maybe big on 3d printing, but no where comperable to what Russia was before the war started. I would be very suprised if GW was selling much in eastern europe in 5-10 years. Things like custodes and HH is already made out of printed armies, to make insult to injury bigger, better quality then FW.

So 3d printing and selling models way under the market value can work - so long as the person doing the 3D printing isn't playing taxes, monitoring their expendators for wear and tear; not paying themselves an hourly wage etc...


The 3D print stores I see selling way under are often not doing their books and running a business, they are doing hobby "work" and many will burn out once the initial hype wears off; of they trade just enough to only earn ehough to buy a bit of resin for themselves here and there.

The ones actually doing a proper business and such tend to be not far off regular model prices from cast models. Because those models are also produced for tiny amounts per model, but all the upkeep, etc....... is where the money goes.


When you buy a model much of the money you spend isn't on the individual materials and production of just that one model for you; its all the upkeep, company, wages, staff, shipping (even if its free it gets paid for somewhere) etc... .

I did not vote. As everyone else I could only speculate and speculation isn't fact and no base for action.
I don't care at all why GW does anything. The only thing that matters is the quality of the product. To me the quality of the product is good enough to have some fun gaming with friends, but not good enough to play it just because of the game itself, for example with random people I don't know.
The product GW provides is definetly not good enough and absolutely not reliable enough to spend much money on it. Therefore I cut down on expenses while not cutting down on playtime with friends.
I rarely buy models made by GW and instead bought a 3d printer I also use for other game material for other games.
I don't spend money on any book made by GW. I don't think I will ever again.

Why the product is what it is, isn't important to me, if I knew nothing would change about the product itself. Only thing I have to decide is if to me it's consumer benefit is big enough to spend money on it.

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

If that was true GW would be making models for painters and builders. Yet all they do with how the game looks, the models are cut etc is not being build or paint friendly. And again painters don't buy whole armies every quarter seson or more often. It may change when 3d printing goes full capacity and the war ends. But hey everyone is allowed to have a view on things. No matter who it is, there is a group of people between 10 to 15% who are buying 80% of all models and out of those a 1-2% are buying 80% of those 80%.

There's a huge number of people outside the categories of "meta chaser" and "only buy to paint". Gert is correct, the vast majority of players fall into the category of regular players who aren't interested in chasing the meta and that's where most of the sales come from. There's no need for GW to overpower new releases because people will buy the new stuff anyway.

As to the OP's question he obvious answer is no. I don't think GW understand their game well enough to overpower things deliberately. For every broken release there's a complete dud, especially when you look at new models rather than at the Codex as a whole. I don't think there's ever been a Primaris model released that was broken when it first came out, for example. Them last wave of Sisters models were terrible on the tabletop. Same withj Eldar - Banshees and Jain Zar are hardy tearing up the meta.

I think there's a general upward curve in power level, but that's more down to GW's inability to rein in their own creativity and actually design an edition rather than a series of individual books. Even at that, the trajectory is not a simple upward-pointing line of increasing power.

We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

 alextroy wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Lammia wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

Sorry but if it Talks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck - it's probably a Duck.

I could see this happening once or twice with a small business but for a multimillion dollar company to keep making the same mistakes over and over which just happen to, by coincidence, sell more product eventually we have to call a Spade a Spade.

Trust me when I say the used car salesman didn't sell you that lemon out of naive innocence.

Funny thing about the Duck Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

GWs ability to constantly fail to sell a new model due to underpowered rules while overpowering rules for models people already have is all the proof you need to know that GW isn't doing it on purpose.

Did you read your own link? Because otherwise it seems like you are engaged in bait and switch yourself.

The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning, usually expressed as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

It says it's abductive reasoning, not a fallacy:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations.

How is that a fallacy? Should I presume malice or?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:
Generally I think they write like a pack of over-excited 12 year olds going "wouldn't it be cool if..."

I also think their in-house testing is super non-competitive, and they just don't see blatantly overpowered stuff like liquifiers plus dark technomancer in the DE codex because, despite creating the combo with the "wouldn't it be cool if" mentality, they then only take one in a list instead of cramming in as many as will fit in a 2000 point army.

That said, there have definitely been examples where it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales, eg the eldar wraithknight on it's initial release...

Wait, they even admitted it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
That said, there have definitely been examples where it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales, eg the eldar wraithknight on it's initial release...

Do we have any other known examples? The Wraithknight is one, but I don't recall any others where we know there was meddling to drive sales.

Oh geez....

" How do you know they are bank robbers?"

"They admitted to robbing a bank.*

" Oh geez besides that one bank!"

I am going to go with no because I think that it is colossal incompetence more than it is intentionally overpowering units. There are so many units that have been release that are utter garbage on release and continue to stay that way. Pyrovores are a perfect example of this. How about Reivers? Hell most of the Beast Snaga stuff is terrible and it is the new hotness for Orks.

If GW writes rules to sell models they are as incompetent at that as they are at most everything else.

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

Exactly. Do they honestly think anyone would by dozens of Guardsmen or Space Marines without the game? Yeah right.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

Do you really believe Votaan were about to be released as is because they thought it would be balanced?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

Do you really believe Votaan were about to be released as is because they thought it would be balanced?

It's funny because all these people literally screaming GW purposely op'ed Votann "just to be greedy" are now the first to argue GW would never imbalance the game. It's almost like multiple personality disorder.

In any case they are ignoring a lot of context:

- GW not letting people play their own games in their own gaming stores.

- GW trying to sabotage other game stores with price hikes made with barely any warning that can badly damage their sales.

-GW being so extreme they tried to ban models from games and tournaments that weren't painted with official GW paint.

Also this claim that people don't buy models for the game is so ridiculous. Yeah, the Necron players buys like 50 of the same model just for decoration. Sure.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

Do you really believe Votaan were about to be released as is because they thought it would be balanced?

oh, right, Votann were busted (and got day -1 nerfed).

what new model was OP before that?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

Do you really believe Votaan were about to be released as is because they thought it would be balanced?

oh, right, Votann were busted (and got day -1 nerfed).

what new model was OP before that?

After pre-orders were made of course.

Also you keep ignoring how Forge-World models are consistently underpowered. I mean what a coincidence - the products GW do not get direct profit from just by sheer chance tend to be weaker units.

Asenion wrote:


After pre-orders were made of course.

Also you keep ignoring how Forge-World models are consistently underpowered. I mean what a coincidence - the products GW do not get direct profit from just by sheer chance tend to be weaker units.

ok, i'll ask again : what other new model were OP before votann?

Oh and FW and GW are the same entity btw....

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I am going to go with no because I think that it is colossal incompetence more than it is intentionally overpowering units. There are so many units that have been release that are utter garbage on release and continue to stay that way. Pyrovores are a perfect example of this. How about Reivers? Hell most of the Beast Snaga stuff is terrible and it is the new hotness for Orks.

If GW writes rules to sell models they are as incompetent at that as they are at most everything else.

My best example is the first Ogre Kingdoms armybook. Brand new faction, huge, entirely new line of models. Completely unplayable for the entire lifespan of the armybook, because apparently, the only place in the world where somebody was using monstrous rank&file units in 6th was GW headquarters.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Asenion wrote:


After pre-orders were made of course.

Also you keep ignoring how Forge-World models are consistently underpowered. I mean what a coincidence - the products GW do not get direct profit from just by sheer chance tend to be weaker units.

ok, i'll ask again : what other new model were OP before votann?

Oh and FW and GW are the same entity btw....

You do realize their NEWEST MODEL is the centerpiece of a new Over-Powered Combo right?

https://youtu.be/gOFloa7bBzU

Lord Solar, part of "a horrendous damage dealing Alpha Strike with no counters..."

Wow, so their very latest model is OP, you claim their second latest SET of DOZENS of models were OP, but that won't count if their 3rd fourth back was not, and if that is we go 4 parts back, then 5!

I believe the melter primaris were completely invalidating any vehicle in the beginning of 9th.
But the only way to get them was via the launch box. I don't recall how the worked after the codex and standalone box got released, tough.

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

If that was true GW would be making models for painters and builders. Yet all they do with how the game looks, the models are cut etc is not being build or paint friendly. And again painters don't buy whole armies every quarter seson or more often. It may change when 3d printing goes full capacity and the war ends. But hey everyone is allowed to have a view on things. No matter who it is, there is a group of people between 10 to 15% who are buying 80% of all models and out of those a 1-2% are buying 80% of those 80%.

Asenion wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

Exactly. Do they honestly think anyone would by dozens of Guardsmen or Space Marines without the game? Yeah right.

The entirety of my Primaris Salamanders(7k-ish pts)would like to say hello. They're never gonna see the table, that's the job of my MKIII/VI's. I like the models and that's about it.

The game is like 4th or 5th on the list of stuff I DO like about 40k. It's an interactive and fun thing to do with my well painted miniatures rather than just sitting in a display cabinet(which is also fine).

I can understand people who only like the game and any degree in between. But don't act like it's the only way to hobby.

Asenion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Asenion wrote:


After pre-orders were made of course.

Also you keep ignoring how Forge-World models are consistently underpowered. I mean what a coincidence - the products GW do not get direct profit from just by sheer chance tend to be weaker units.

ok, i'll ask again : what other new model were OP before votann?

Oh and FW and GW are the same entity btw....

You do realize their NEWEST MODEL is the centerpiece of a new Over-Powered Combo right?

https://youtu.be/gOFloa7bBzU

Lord Solar, part of "a horrendous damage dealing Alpha Strike with no counters..."

Wow, so their very latest model is OP, you claim their second latest SET of DOZENS of models were OP, but that won't count if their 3rd fourth back was not, and if that is we go 4 parts back, then 5!

no, i've been implying that if 3 new models are OP out of 500, and that old models are given OP stats (flamers), the premise that GW purposely makes new stuff OP is false.

Cyel wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I am going to go with no because I think that it is colossal incompetence more than it is intentionally overpowering units. There are so many units that have been release that are utter garbage on release and continue to stay that way. Pyrovores are a perfect example of this. How about Reivers? Hell most of the Beast Snaga stuff is terrible and it is the new hotness for Orks.

If GW writes rules to sell models they are as incompetent at that as they are at most everything else.

My best example is the first Ogre Kingdoms armybook. Brand new faction, huge, entirely new line of models. Completely unplayable for the entire lifespan of the armybook, because apparently, the only place in the world where somebody was using monstrous rank&file units in 6th was GW headquarters.

I don't get it. We know GW tends to be control freaks in their stores and at their tournaments. Nothing happens without an army of spies reporting every nose blown and leg scratched.

But we're to believe when they make products all of a sudden they turn into hippy, libertarian Dudes from the "Big Lebowski" and have no oversight or micromanaging at all.

As for when they mess up, that could well be cause they're cheap. Even the greediest people can mess up in big ways sometimes by cutting corners and being cheap. Cheap and Greedy tend to go hand in hand more often then not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

I really wouldn't because the number of people who buy models to Meta chase are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy models to just build and paint.

@SgtCortez
Agreed.

If that was true GW would be making models for painters and builders. Yet all they do with how the game looks, the models are cut etc is not being build or paint friendly. And again painters don't buy whole armies every quarter seson or more often. It may change when 3d printing goes full capacity and the war ends. But hey everyone is allowed to have a view on things. No matter who it is, there is a group of people between 10 to 15% who are buying 80% of all models and out of those a 1-2% are buying 80% of those 80%.

Asenion wrote:

Karol wrote:
You would be suprised how many people buy the models to play the game. Not many people that like the model, buy 9 void weavers or buy out dark eldar raiders online.

Exactly. Do they honestly think anyone would by dozens of Guardsmen or Space Marines without the game? Yeah right.

The entirety of my Primaris Salamanders(7k-ish pts)would like to say hello. They're never gonna see the table, that's the job of my MKIII/VI's. I like the models and that's about it.

The game is like 4th or 5th on the list of stuff I DO like about 40k. It's an interactive and fun thing to do with my well painted miniatures rather than just sitting in a display cabinet(which is also fine).

I can understand people who only like the game and any degree in between. But don't act like it's the only way to hobby.

I didn't realize the company was called "Hobby Workshop".

I for some reason thought they made "Games". You know being GAMES Workshop and all.

In fact one of their original products before WH was Hero Quest. Did people buy that just for miniatures too?

Also "The Hobby" as if painted models or playing War Games only began with GW selling Space Marines. Trust me pal, both those things existed long before GW! Other games and models might not exist in your mind but in the whole world they certainly do. Oh wait but you're "THE Hobby".

Okay Big Rooster.

I don;t think that they are that concerned about the rules....

Asenion wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I am going to go with no because I think that it is colossal incompetence more than it is intentionally overpowering units. There are so many units that have been release that are utter garbage on release and continue to stay that way. Pyrovores are a perfect example of this. How about Reivers? Hell most of the Beast Snaga stuff is terrible and it is the new hotness for Orks.

If GW writes rules to sell models they are as incompetent at that as they are at most everything else.

My best example is the first Ogre Kingdoms armybook. Brand new faction, huge, entirely new line of models. Completely unplayable for the entire lifespan of the armybook, because apparently, the only place in the world where somebody was using monstrous rank&file units in 6th was GW headquarters.

I don't get it. We know GW tends to be control freaks in their stores and at their tournaments. Nothing happens without an army of spies reporting every nose blown and leg scratched.

But we're to believe when they make products all of a sudden they turn into hippy, libertarian Dudes from the "Big Lebowski" and have no oversight or micromanaging at all.

As for when they mess up, that could well be cause they're cheap. Even the greediest people can mess up in big ways sometimes by cutting corners and being cheap. Cheap and Greedy tend to go hand in hand more often then not.

Let's just say everything you write is fact. That's fine, no need for discussion.
What kind of action does this result in?
What are you doing now regarding your 40k gaming habits, because of your knowledge?

myUserName wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I am going to go with no because I think that it is colossal incompetence more than it is intentionally overpowering units. There are so many units that have been release that are utter garbage on release and continue to stay that way. Pyrovores are a perfect example of this. How about Reivers? Hell most of the Beast Snaga stuff is terrible and it is the new hotness for Orks.

If GW writes rules to sell models they are as incompetent at that as they are at most everything else.

My best example is the first Ogre Kingdoms armybook. Brand new faction, huge, entirely new line of models. Completely unplayable for the entire lifespan of the armybook, because apparently, the only place in the world where somebody was using monstrous rank&file units in 6th was GW headquarters.

I don't get it. We know GW tends to be control freaks in their stores and at their tournaments. Nothing happens without an army of spies reporting every nose blown and leg scratched.

But we're to believe when they make products all of a sudden they turn into hippy, libertarian Dudes from the "Big Lebowski" and have no oversight or micromanaging at all.

As for when they mess up, that could well be cause they're cheap. Even the greediest people can mess up in big ways sometimes by cutting corners and being cheap. Cheap and Greedy tend to go hand in hand more often then not.

Let's just say everything you write is fact. That's fine, no need for discussion.
What kind of action does this result in?
What are you doing now regarding your 40k gaming habits, because of your knowledge?

Whatever I feel like.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We know that GW have deliberately made new releases overpowered in the past; and I see no reason to believe that they'd have stopped doing that just because NuGW have a Twitter account or whatever.

Whether they make entire books overpowered is another matter.

what was the latest new model that was released overpowered?

Do you really believe Votaan were about to be released as is because they thought it would be balanced?

oh, right, Votann were busted (and got day -1 nerfed).

what new model was OP before that?

The only reason for the nerf was because of threats to not let people play the army in tournaments and boycotting the release in general. Did you forget about all that?

If i recall didn't GW offer refunds or cancellations of the LOV stuff? The backlash regarding their power was that extreme.

But i'll be honest, this feels like a case of developer intention vs end user ability to break things.

GW wants to give a faction a few fancy rules, thinks people will enjoy them. Players day one find a way they will interact that negatively affects the game. IE, grudge tokens allowing for automatic mortal wounds. They attempt to correct, over do it with the points corrections before the faction is even released proper. I've had it happen while playing orks multiple times.

Yes it feels like these things are getting more extreme, and if you're not on the bandwagon faction of the week it kinda sucks to feel weaker and weaker as time goes on. But I don't think it's intentional any more than I think poor balancing in a video game is intentional. Most likely cause, not being willing to spend the time to stress test with a wide audience. Possibly due to costs or the wish to make every release a surprise.

Now that's something i think GW is intentionally doing, keeping releases hidden for as long as possible to try and shift a little more of a given SKU, even if that item is about to be made redundant like a codex. I swear it's happened to me at least once.

The Votann "army box" went on pre-order on 17th September. 2 characters, 20 troops and 3 bikes. The whole roster was then nerfed on 29th September - presumably due to the backlash over the codex's perceived power (and seriously some of the points were just nuts).

The bulk of the Votann roster however wasn't available for pre-order until a month later, on 29th October.

Asenion wrote:
I didn't realize the company was called "Hobby Workshop".

I for some reason thought they made "Games". You know being GAMES Workshop and all.

In fact one of their original products before WH was Hero Quest. Did people buy that just for miniatures too?

Also "The Hobby" as if painted models or playing War Games only began with GW selling Space Marines. Trust me pal, both those things existed long before GW! Other games and models might not exist in your mind but in the whole world they certainly do. Oh wait but you're "THE Hobby".

Okay Big Rooster.

Apple does not sell fruit.

 Gert wrote:

Asenion wrote:
I didn't realize the company was called "Hobby Workshop".

I for some reason thought they made "Games". You know being GAMES Workshop and all.

In fact one of their original products before WH was Hero Quest. Did people buy that just for miniatures too?

Also "The Hobby" as if painted models or playing War Games only began with GW selling Space Marines. Trust me pal, both those things existed long before GW! Other games and models might not exist in your mind but in the whole world they certainly do. Oh wait but you're "THE Hobby".

Okay Big Rooster.

Apple does not sell fruit.

Dude missed the Kirby years, the lead up to the Kirby years...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brickfix wrote:
I believe the melter primaris were completely invalidating any vehicle in the beginning of 9th.
But the only way to get them was via the launch box. I don't recall how the worked after the codex and standalone box got released, tough.

That was and still is a vehicle problem.

 Gert wrote:

Asenion wrote:
I didn't realize the company was called "Hobby Workshop".

I for some reason thought they made "Games". You know being GAMES Workshop and all.

In fact one of their original products before WH was Hero Quest. Did people buy that just for miniatures too?

Also "The Hobby" as if painted models or playing War Games only began with GW selling Space Marines. Trust me pal, both those things existed long before GW! Other games and models might not exist in your mind but in the whole world they certainly do. Oh wait but you're "THE Hobby".

Okay Big Rooster.

Apple does not sell fruit.

Plus games workshop owns/is paired with citadel miniatures , who claim credit for a lot of the sculpts right up to early 40k days.

Mr Morden wrote:I don;t think that they are that concerned about the rules....

Yeah, I couldn't give a feth about rules and at this point care less about gw kits since 3d printer goes printyprint. But still buy the plastic I like.

Short answer: yes, they do.

Long answer: Every codex they've published has seen an increase in strength, with a few exceptions over the years, but sometimes that leads to overwhelming situations that aren't fun, without going that far with editions, does anybody remember what happened when Did the Drukhari Codex come out in the 9th edition? Remember the fair complaint of all non-Drukhari gamers? Do you remember which army was at the top in various tournaments around the world? And then we had Custodes, Tau, Orcs, Harlequins, Tyranids, now it's the turn of Votann and Guards, the only army that didn't reflect this trend were the Genestealers cults, I think more for the hard game than anything but maybe I'm wrong.

The good thing nowadays is that GW tries to solve with FAQs, balance dataslates and GT manuals, the most overwhelming thing, the bad is that you need a lot of cards to play.

Phoenix Lord wrote:
Short answer: yes, they do.

Long answer: Every codex they've published has seen an increase in strength, with a few exceptions over the years, but sometimes that leads to overwhelming situations that aren't fun, without going that far with editions, does anybody remember what happened when Did the Drukhari Codex come out in the 9th edition? Remember the fair complaint of all non-Drukhari gamers? Do you remember which army was at the top in various tournaments around the world? And then we had Custodes, Tau, Orcs, Harlequins, Tyranids, now it's the turn of Votann and Guards, the only army that didn't reflect this trend were the Genestealers cults, I think more for the hard game than anything but maybe I'm wrong.

The good thing nowadays is that GW tries to solve with FAQs, balance dataslates and GT manuals, the most overwhelming thing, the bad is that you need a lot of cards to play.

Orcs never really got the highest heights. They just had a 15 second in the sun with their car park.

You are also missing out on a few books here who were average to subpar or exceptionally short lived.

Death Guard - Have been solidly in the average tier the entire edition. Love the army.

Necrons - Only good now because of changed secondaries. Atrocious at release and the book still struggles on its own.

Every flavor of Space Marine - Got a little use in the beginning but have been struggling the entire edition. You'll see one and one outlier reach for victory, but overall the poster boys - and the army that should be selling the most - isn't really doing well these days.

Knights, Chaos and Imperial - Very much average like Death Guard. Can do good but aren't burning down the house.

Technically Aeldari as the only thing that was OP in the book is Harlequins that used to be its own faction. The rest of the faction hit lower winrates after the secondaries got changed. Slight uptick thanks to Hail of Doom that got reined in rather fast. Now you'll only see Harlequins or Ynnari, with standard Craftworlds rarely in sight. Considering the legacy of Aeldari this book hit the streets and disappeared almost as quickly with the exception of Harlequins who hit everything like a flaming meteorite.

Daemons are very much an average faction if you ignore the Flamers. The book isn't selling much except Flamers. Codex: Flamers of Tzeentch at this point.

Sisters of Battle have also been upper-mid / mid-tier the entire edition. Got propped up by boosted secondaries but aren't really punching up much. They also came with a ton of new units that haven't really moved many boxes.

...and of course GSC as you mentioned.

Asenion wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
That said, there have definitely been examples where it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales, eg the eldar wraithknight on it's initial release...

Do we have any other known examples? The Wraithknight is one, but I don't recall any others where we know there was meddling to drive sales.

Oh geez....

" How do you know they are bank robbers?"

"They admitted to robbing a bank.*

" Oh geez besides that one bank!"

Thank you for conceding the point.

Note that Crispy78's post I was replying to said there were examples where "...it has been admitted that things have been overpowered or under-costed to drive sales..." - but only the Wraithknight is quoted in his example. It's the only one I can recall, too, where we have heard from someone within the Studio at the time - and I can't recall who it was, offhand - that they were originally going to have the Wraithknight cost more points after testing (I think), but were told to keep it at the level it was released at because it would sell more.

To my knowledge - and why I asked the question - that's the only case where we've had that confirmation. For every other case where people may think that it is the case, or believe that it is the case, we've not had that "inside baseball" confirmation.

If, as Crispy78 said, there were examples - note the use of the plural form in the quote, for the hard of thinking - then it shouldn't be so tricky to cite the other cases where this has been admitted, should it?

 Eldarsif wrote:

Phoenix Lord wrote:
Short answer: yes, they do.

Long answer: Every codex they've published has seen an increase in strength, with a few exceptions over the years, but sometimes that leads to overwhelming situations that aren't fun, without going that far with editions, does anybody remember what happened when Did the Drukhari Codex come out in the 9th edition? Remember the fair complaint of all non-Drukhari gamers? Do you remember which army was at the top in various tournaments around the world? And then we had Custodes, Tau, Orcs, Harlequins, Tyranids, now it's the turn of Votann and Guards, the only army that didn't reflect this trend were the Genestealers cults, I think more for the hard game than anything but maybe I'm wrong.

The good thing nowadays is that GW tries to solve with FAQs, balance dataslates and GT manuals, the most overwhelming thing, the bad is that you need a lot of cards to play.

Orcs never really got the highest heights. They just had a 15 second in the sun with their car park.

You are also missing out on a few books here who were average to subpar or exceptionally short lived.

Death Guard - Have been solidly in the average tier the entire edition. Love the army.

Necrons - Only good now because of changed secondaries. Atrocious at release and the book still struggles on its own.

Every flavor of Space Marine - Got a little use in the beginning but have been struggling the entire edition. You'll see one and one outlier reach for victory, but overall the poster boys - and the army that should be selling the most - isn't really doing well these days.

Knights, Chaos and Imperial - Very much average like Death Guard. Can do good but aren't burning down the house.

Technically Aeldari as the only thing that was OP in the book is Harlequins that used to be its own faction. The rest of the faction hit lower winrates after the secondaries got changed. Slight uptick thanks to Hail of Doom that got reined in rather fast. Now you'll only see Harlequins or Ynnari, with standard Craftworlds rarely in sight. Considering the legacy of Aeldari this book hit the streets and disappeared almost as quickly with the exception of Harlequins who hit everything like a flaming meteorite.

Daemons are very much an average faction if you ignore the Flamers. The book isn't selling much except Flamers. Codex: Flamers of Tzeentch at this point.

Sisters of Battle have also been upper-mid / mid-tier the entire edition. Got propped up by boosted secondaries but aren't really punching up much. They also came with a ton of new units that haven't really moved many boxes.

...and of course GSC as you mentioned.

Tsons also were mediocre on launch if I recall. But the issue is what is defined as "OP", if it's anything punching above 55% WR then it's 50/50 really. I say this becasue 45-55 is the target zone for balanced by GW and oft most peoples loosest definition, so if they come out and land in that zone then they're not "OP" even if they clear 50%.

For the egregious books really its:

- Drukhari
- Admech
- Custodes
- Tau
- Harlies
- Nids
- Votann

There's a question mark for Orks and Daemons for the reasons otherwise mentioned.

It is much more simple, GW does not think in terms of overpowered, balanced or playable

they think in terms of "cool" and "really cool"

so GW working on a factions means they design models they think are "cool", write background they think is "cool" and write rules that fit the model and background while being "really cool"

than they release parts of the new rules ot testers asking them if those new mechanics are cool or really cool and adjust them of needed

and sometimes this turns out to be overpowered, sometimes it is balanced and sometimes it is really bad
but this does not matter because GW thinks those are really cool, and they get confirmation by sales as "the pre-release box sold out, so the community also thinks the new stuff is really cool so everything is fine"

to actually think about something different than "what sounds cool", they would need to play a game (according to the rules, without any houserules) but they don't

Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

Asenion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Lammia wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

Sorry but if it Talks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck - it's probably a Duck.

I could see this happening once or twice with a small business but for a multimillion dollar company to keep making the same mistakes over and over which just happen to, by coincidence, sell more product eventually we have to call a Spade a Spade.

Trust me when I say the used car salesman didn't sell you that lemon out of naive innocence.

Funny thing about the Duck Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

GWs ability to constantly fail to sell a new model due to underpowered rules while overpowering rules for models people already have is all the proof you need to know that GW isn't doing it on purpose.

Did you read your own link? Because otherwise it seems like you are engaged in bait and switch yourself.

I did. Apparently you didn't.

The French automaton maker Jacques de Vaucanson created a mechanical duck in 1738. The mechanical duck would quack, move its head to eat grain which it would appear to digest, and after a short time would excrete a mixture that looked and smelled like duck droppings. The irony is that while the phrase is often cited as proof of abductive reasoning, it is not proof, as the mechanical duck is still not a living duck.

So ironically, the off quoted rules of the duck test were used to prove that the mechanical duck was a duck, which it clearly isn't.

 jaredb wrote:
New units are not necessarily always good.

I'm more in the boat of "rule are too good by accident" rather than malice.

You've got a good point, the problem is players are really good at spotting the gold and avoiding the crap. Years ago when GW introduced new units people ran out and converted Defilers and Storm Ravens (there was no model at release) because they were amazing. No one was too concerned about converting up Scout Bikers or whatever.

So good on GW for balance patching and such but I think it is fair to say they sometimes anoint a unit to be the new hotness and write rules that make it impossible for players to resist.

And do that with every intention of nerfing it later.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

During the pre launch of Votan they said it performed well VS what they where playtesting against. And that was tyranids and eldars. Both strong armies upon release.

This says a lott of their playtesting model as this can least to shifting baseline syndrom. Instead they should be playtesting VS Necron and marines. But that takes three times longer to test as you can't test two codexes at the same time.

I do not know the inner workings of GW, but I do belive that the pendulum is trying to swing in the direction of balanced codexes. But it is hard.

It the old days there are reports of previous employees who wanted to price the big eldar wraight knight at some high point cost because the weapons where over powered. But their bosses said they would never sell any then and owrote it to 320 points or the model would not sell. (I think the suggested and recommended amount where around 600 or 800 points.) Those desisisons leads to bad gameplay experiences and thus a worse game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

The wraithknight incident was nearly a decade ago under different management. In fact given that they were probably told to alter the rules during development it probably WAS 10 years ago at this point.

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

The wraithknight incident was nearly a decade ago under different management.

Fair, however it is also fair to point out that the rulesteam also has been very stable and consistent fo the same people in big swaaths.
And i can think of quite a few recent exemples of questionable choices, f.e. PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

Also we know of their "testing" circle being against the other recent codices, which means that they have an inbuilt escalation in power , which facilitates and requires corrections which can be sold separatly as seen with PA in the past.

I think the question is less if GW is purposefully making OP rules and more if Dakkadakka understands what bait and switch actually is.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

Tbh I read the Wraithknight quote as corporate incompetence - or rather indifference - rather than an explicit drive to be overpowered.

We know rules writers are bottom of the pecking order. Jokes about giving Zoats a 2++ aside, "corporate GW" likely doesn't know or much care how the game works. They want to sell plastic. Designing, marketing, selling and shipping this plastic takes precedence. As does, to a degree, maintaining the franchise so they can sell other things. (Like games, and shirts, and... hot sauce?)

I think rules have moved a bit up the priority list (sorry but new GW is sort of a thing - and you can tell because they now attempt to fix stuff in about 6~ weeks rather than 6~ years) - but GW's board won't be having meetings about how many points a Flamer should be.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

(anecdotal evidence but) Most CSM players i know already had possessed since long time players of a faction usually end up with all the options, regardless of if theyre good or not, i'd say 12 years on the shelves is more than enough for people to have bought them, even if their look was "controversial"

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

That boils down to that minority of meta chasing net listers, I don't think the majority of players would have knee jerk bought possessed out of stock due to a supplement.

There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

You forgot the third one

3) Dakkadakka assumes GW is doing something illegal, often while misusing legal concepts.

 Eldarsif wrote:
There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

And that one time for the Wraithknight wasn't even a top level decision. It was some team manager mook who wanted to make something cool and not a company directive.

But people love a good conspiracy and the opportunity to take down something they hate while totally abandoning their capacity to gather data and be rational. Hooray for the internet.

Voted No
*Plays Necrons*

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

And that one time for the Wraithknight wasn't even a top level decision. It was some team manager mook who wanted to make something cool and not a company directive.

And yet it stuck.....

Let me lead with - I am not familiar with the wraith knight thing (I was on a break...)

Yes. Yes they do. GW is a very good marketing company and they market... FOMO at a very high profit margin. GW is also a very good miniature company - which they sell at a very high profit margin. I am not fundamentally opposed to either of those things but what it means is that in order to successfully generate profit from a new release - they push the market to push the FOMO by using rules to sell miniatures.

They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

This leads to another common observation/discussion/complaint - rules bloat. IMHO all of these are related. If they were in fact primarily a "Game" company then all of the new releases would come out already balanced without having to do an edition reset every 3-4 years but that would be less profitable.

That said though - Ill give them a slight nod to the fact that they rules that they play tested were 'finalized' at least 6 to 8 months before release so there is going to be a margin for error in how everything balances out initially.

If they released the rules electronically... More time for testing and more time for balance ... and things are easier to amend. Again - less profits in that. They make money on the codex's and bundles...

Anyway - Whatever they are doing is working for them. Not enough people have left the system to move to OPR or Mantic or...

Tome_Keeper wrote:
Let me lead with - I am not familiar with the wraith knight thing (I was on a break...)

the designers wrote rules they thought are cool and fit the model, and the middle management/sales management reduced the points suggested by the design team so that people would be able to use 3 of them (without adjusting the rules)

and this shows 2 problems of 40k, models are made first and rules come 2nd, which means the decision which models are made comes from a very different department and has nothing to do what an army might need or is missing
if the model design team does not like a specific unit type it gets never added to the faction (and the other way around from other units there are more than could ever fit into the army list)
the rules design team now creates rules that fit the models and the background and not trying to fill gaps in the army list (hence we get several units that have the very same role with one being better than the others simply because not all are created equal and therefore one will be most point efficient)
and the middle management will interfere at any point of the process if they think the unit will sell better if done in a different way

but this also means, to actually make overpowered new units to drive sales, the process would need to be the other way around
designers looking at the game, check what is missing and/or what is good/bad, than create rules that are overpowered and add them to the models coming up

this is also what I meant with my other post, GW creates rules in a very different way and has a very different design philosophy regarding the game
the game is there to have a reason to buy models and rules are designed to fit the models and the fluff while also being "cool"

at no point of the design process anyone thinks of gameplay or performance, this step comes after release and is done by a different team which was added after internal changes as Kirby left (same as the social media team)

hence we get different points on a Codex and a CA although they are released at the same time because those are different teams with different design goals

PS: no matter if you play or not, the possibility to play and have a template on how an army might look like is enough to drive sales for one half of the community, and the other half is driven by the "meta" to actually have something playable
the first halve will always buy no matter how good/bad units are or how playable the game is, the other half increase or decrease sales on changes with the game

hence a bad game will reduce the sales by half, while bad model release will also reduce the sales by half, yet if there are both bad rules and bad model releases the faction fails

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

 kodos wrote:
and this shows 2 problems of 40k, models are made first and rules come 2nd, which means the decision which models are made comes from a very different department and has nothing to do what an army might need or is missing
if the model design team does not like a specific unit type it gets never added to the faction (and the other way around from other units there are more than could ever fit into the army list)
the rules design team now creates rules that fit the models and the background and not trying to fill gaps in the army list (hence we get several units that have the very same role with one being better than the others simply because not all are created equal and therefore one will be most point efficient)
and the middle management will interfere at any point of the process if they think the unit will sell better if done in a different way

I'd say that's a problem with GW as a whole, not just with 40k, and can be seen quite clearly in AOS in three areas.

Some factions have a faction terrain piece, some do not.

Some factions have endless spells (or equivalent), some do not.

Some factions have both of the above, some have one of the above, some have neither.

Despite being one of the four (I think) unit types in the game, many factions have no artillery.

I doubt any of these gaps are due to the rules team - they could be due to management saying no to a concept, or they could be due to the model designers not being able to come up with concepts for things.

for GW as a whole is a bit far, as some games are really designed as games, with the models coming later

Necromunda as prime example, hence the mess with the expansion books etc the new stuff was not known by the time the game was designed and the original designer does not work for GW any more
Adeptus Titanicus, HH, LotR or Warcry work because they got the game designed first as well

so it is more or less just 40k and AoS

Dudeface wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

Maybe "Overpower" is setting the wrong expectation - "Better" or "Stronger" may more closely fit the intent.

There is usually some kind of bang/zoom with a release. New gun/better character/upgraded stats and that will sell some models and codexs and IMHO that is the source question being discussed here- so not using a specific character example..

Since i am not a meta chaser or tourney player - I dont fit into the umbrella you appear to put me in but like many players - I find that being competitive at whatever level is part , but not all, of the enjoyment.

RE:New kits with bad rules - What is the definer there? If the expectation is that every new unit needs to be just a little better than Death Guard Terminators - that seems to prove the question*** GW has their duds, and some units make more sense in a smaller game and some make sense in a larger game, or FLGS campaign, or against a specific opponent.

Possible already done but - Maybe lets ask a couple of supporting questions:
Considering that GW is a for profit company:

If a 9th edition faction codex was exactly the same as the 8th edition codex but with updated art and version specific rules: How many would be sold?
If a unit from any faction was updated with new miniatures but no updated rules : How many units will they sell? (obviously more than the old kit but not as many if they update the rules)
If GW released a new box set with an old codex and old sculpts: How many would be sold?
If GW released a new box set with a new codex, new sculps, and worse rules: How many would they sell?

There is no quantifiable answer - only that it would be "fewer" and "fewer" means less money for GW

Anyway - I believe that they update the releases and rules to sell stuff and that is the primary contributor to rules bloat and eventually - edition resets which in itself is a way to sell more stuff.



*** Yeah , being snarky, no offense intended

Tome_Keeper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

Maybe "Overpower" is setting the wrong expectation - "Better" or "Stronger" may more closely fit the intent.

There is usually some kind of bang/zoom with a release. New gun/better character/upgraded stats and that will sell some models and codexs and IMHO that is the source question being discussed here- so not using a specific character example..

Since i am not a meta chaser or tourney player - I dont fit into the umbrella you appear to put me in but like many players - I find that being competitive at whatever level is part , but not all, of the enjoyment.

RE:New kits with bad rules - What is the definer there? If the expectation is that every new unit needs to be just a little better than Death Guard Terminators - that seems to prove the question*** GW has their duds, and some units make more sense in a smaller game and some make sense in a larger game, or FLGS campaign, or against a specific opponent.

Possible already done but - Maybe lets ask a couple of supporting questions:
Considering that GW is a for profit company:

If a 9th edition faction codex was exactly the same as the 8th edition codex but with updated art and version specific rules: How many would be sold?
If a unit from any faction was updated with new miniatures but no updated rules : How many units will they sell? (obviously more than the old kit but not as many if they update the rules)
If GW released a new box set with an old codex and old sculpts: How many would be sold?
If GW released a new box set with a new codex, new sculps, and worse rules: How many would they sell?

There is no quantifiable answer - only that it would be "fewer" and "fewer" means less money for GW

Anyway - I believe that they update the releases and rules to sell stuff and that is the primary contributor to rules bloat and eventually - edition resets which in itself is a way to sell more stuff.

*** Yeah , being snarky, no offense intended

Rules bloat =/= purposefully overpowering.

Giving more exciting rules for models that may have been boring, sells models. Playing Thousand Sons in 8th was cool. It felt like Thousand Sons. Playing them in 9th is far and away a much better experience and it isn't because of overpowered units.

The other part of this problem is that any action GW takes to fix something is automatically filtered under the lens that it was done purely to sell the models. Let's look at the SM Gladiator variants. Those kits have been out for a while now and almost no one is sweet on them. They've received point cuts twice and still they don't really move. No one is yet claiming GW tweaked them to sell, because they've been unsuccessful at making them compelling to take on the table. The game is littered with units that were made good and no one talks about GW getting it right, because that's not as fun to talk about.

As always the release procedure leads to a stochastic balance outlook and GW is still learning ( decades late, but here we are ). Additionally, the factors impacting the game have changed radically over a short period of time. At the onset of 9th we didn't have the same understanding of terrain that we do now. Nor did we have the same secondaries or mission design.

This is a system that is a huge sum of its parts that gets casually ignored.

Is there any value in considering the state of how quick GW has been with the nerf bat post release this edition? Given the length of time required to actually crunch numbers, and put together a nerf package, it seems almost pre-meditated?

Please forgive the inaccurate time line, I can't recall this far back:

SM release new Primaris Melta boys. Nerfed within a (?) month?

DE release with very low costed yet abusable units, nerfed within 1 month?

Eldar and Clowns: release in a broken state, left to stew for almost two months?

Tau, Custodes, and Zerg: given nerfs after almonst 3-4 months of blatant silliness.

Votann: Nerfed within weeks of release?

Orks - never really nerfed? Release was crap and remained so?

Again, my dates are likely wrong, very likely, but given how LONG it takes GW to put anything on paper, is Votaan really believable that they didn't intend to nerf them as soon as they released?

New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

And yet 40k was dying under Kirby.

GW is and likely always will be a model company first and foremost. But rules releases definitely help as show by 40k's fast growth when GW was able to release one or two codex per month during 8th.

IMHO it isn't even that the rules need to be balanced, but a quick and sustained release schedule gives the illusion of support, and that is a very important one.

Lammia wrote:
New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

No, he wasn’t. The game is what gives the models context and what not.

Lammia wrote:
New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

Except that the sales of the game started picking up once they focused on the game part.

It was one part of many, but yes when GW started treating the game they sell more seriously the sales did pick up.

I think they (managers) also finally realised that many customers, from gamers to artists to collectors, often only focus on a few armies or one army. So when an army didn't get a new codex/battletome and didn't get any new models, marketing or attention. All the customers for that force didn't just go buying other GW stuff. They stopped buying GW stuff. They might get the odd thing here or there, but they were just as likely to start another game from another company and not remain within the GW ecosystem.

However when GW started giving all armies much more equal attention and sped up the update of rules for them and marketing it made a huge difference.



Heck you want another - look at Forgewrold for AoS, the only models there that are for AoS (ergo not the chaos demons) in any number are the Gloomspite models. They are also the only ones that got any marketing on the community pages.
Many others were dropped, loads of awesome dragons who were hidden in destruction grand alliance and others that got no marketing; just vanished. Likely in part due to lack of effective sales volume.


When GW markets something it helps sell it; when GW ignores something it dwindles.


So faster battletome/codex turn around; new models even if its just 1 leader model. These things all help gain interest and keep fans buying that army. Which keeps them in the GW system and thus prime for marketing other GW products too.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Lammia wrote:
New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

No, he wasn’t. The game is what gives the models context and what not.

For most of the market, this is true. And one of the reasons he failed as a manager of a company, is because - like another CEO in the media atm - he decided to define the whole company by one skill set. (And then failed to make the most of that one)

it is the combined factor of both, bad rules with bad models on release that has the big impact and "kills" a GW game, that happend to Warhammer Fantasy and nearly happend to 40k with Kirby

to Game drive the sales no matter if people play it or not, but if the game is considered "bad" and not fun by the community even those who would have never played it hesitate to buy an army because if there is the possibility is missing to play a game at all they feel their investment won't be worth it, even if the army would forever be on display only on a shelf
in combination if the models are "bad", as in too expensive for what you get or not all models in the army are on the same level (like an outdated core that does not match the new elites/heroes in design but is a must for an army) than only the meta chasers buy into it, if the rules are good

and having a social media department and influencers on contracts that only allow positive messages without mentioning anything non-GW makes a big difference here as those that never play only get the information that "everyone plays this game" combined with "it is the best possible game and lot of fun"
and this alone now drive sales

this was also a reason why GW reacted so fast on Votaan while other factions that need a nerf were not touched for a long time
unrest on social media that you cannot play that army, even with the english speaking community got the reason why it was banned wrong, and it would not have been a problem if there would have never been a pre-release Errata at all
yet GW needed to react as simply the rumour before release was enough that it might affect sales for all groups as without the "illusion" to maybe play them once, people won't buy into an army at all


there are several surveys on Reddit and Youtube were it looks like that 50% of the people who have an 40k army never played a game (for different reasons)

while others show that the reason why people go with Age of Sigmar or 40k is that they know they game will be there and supported "forever" rather than being killed off after a short time
which is ironic because by now GW is the only company in the hobby that killed of their own games and removed them from sale and a lot of other games are around for a very long time as well (OPR is there for about 10-15 years now, Dirtside/Stargrunt for ~20 years, Battletech is as old as 40k etc) and compared to those games 40k is just an old brand with the "game" lasting 6 years at best and are replaced by something different with the same name (but people who don't play will never realise this, so it does not matter, they just know it is still around)

and this is also a reason why a lot of people are still angry for the dead games (with some of them being back the hype for the others is real, even though none of those were ever dead-games), they bought into GWs promise that their games will be always there and therefore people accepted bad rules and higher prices as the necessary trade of compared to other games
and than GW removes the only reason you paid the high prices and played with rules you never really liked, of course you are angry and than of course the community splits up (as you rather go and play the game you because there is no reason any more not to do so)

Yeah, player hype is important.

Which is why the profession circuit have such influence. Because if they say the game is busted it feeds down to the rest. Even if 99%, probably more, have never seen 9 Voidweavers etc in real life.

But in turn - I don't think social media or influencers is the key to new GW. Its fixing (or at least changing) the rules. I don't think at their core there were problems with WHFB or 6th/7th 40k. The problem was just leaving the rules largely unchanged (beyond some DLC in 7th) for years. People who were enjoying the game eventually ran out of patience. Guard players have experienced something like that these last few years - but that's one faction, not the majority of them.

agree, changing from "we don't make mistakes" to "we try to fix it" is a big part of keeping things going and one of the big changes from 7th/8th Fantasy and 6th/7th 40k
but just saying that you try without actually fixing something would not work without having a social media presence behind that says well done now it is fixed

and staying positive about the game and not mentioning any flaw is a big part of a lot of GW communities, no matter if "the fix" did not help at all or did not fix it but just shifted the balance in the opposite direction

and that people would rather like to se a reset with 10th instead of just an update, says a lot about how well GW fixed the flaws that came with 8th, which was already the reset to fix all flaws
this is also possible a reason why we see some tension between the different groups, as those that actual play the game and not having much fun any more, and those that don't play but want to believe everything is (for whatever reason) have a growing gap between them

Tome_Keeper wrote:
They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

This is laughably wrong. Not only these are cherrypicked examples from like 20 years, there are way more counterexamples. Deathwatch, shiny new SM range, terrible rules, which were then nerfed 5 (!) times in a row. Primaris, really mediocre rules, took three buffs to get to merely okay status, then ruined again by idiotic, unfluffy decision to give old, ugly, cheap squat models W2 for no reason. Genestealer Cults, another shiny new range, spent big percent of its existence as one of the worst armies in game. Necrons, big shiny update, bad rules. New Black Templars, really meh (but people bought them anyway to use them as Primaris veteran conversions). In fact, Votann are really the only new army with strong rules, and funnily enough, broken gak there was copy pasted from Tau and Eldar rules, two of the armies with incompetent writers always giving them ultra busted rules.

According to you, broken Eldar rules in 8th (specifically, aspect warriors, especially reapers, old, ugly, cheap, resin minis close to 20 years old) were supposed to sell what? Old resin gak with close to no profit made on them instead of new, shiny, expensive Eldar models? Gee, maybe, just maybe, it's Phil Kelly's incompetence, not a conspiracy. Ditto with Ynnari, utterly broken, all for the sake of (checks notes) all of three 7th edition models. And in 9th, the most broken army, Harlequins, is supposed to sell what? The new models they didn't get in 8th and 9th editions? Why not make Necrons/GSC/BT or Phobos OP to sell new plastic, but it's always the same old ugly gak people bought already ages ago?

It's almost as if cheese being always some kind of Eldar (who, totally by accident, are pet army of one of the most incompetent GW writers, Phil Kelly) would give people a clue why this is happening. But no, it's GW conspiracy to sell new models, only they give the OP cheese to oldest crap possible and it's virtually never the new models, but who cares about the facts, conspiracy it is!

 Irbis wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:
They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

This is laughably wrong. Not only these are cherrypicked examples from like 20 years, there are way more counterexamples. Deathwatch, shiny new SM range, terrible rules, which were then nerfed 5 (!) times in a row. Primaris, really mediocre rules, took three buffs to get to merely okay status, then ruined again by idiotic, unfluffy decision to give old, ugly, cheap squat models W2 for no reason. Genestealer Cults, another shiny new range, spent big percent of its existence as one of the worst armies in game. Necrons, big shiny update, bad rules. New Black Templars, really meh (but people bought them anyway to use them as Primaris veteran conversions). In fact, Votann are really the only new army with strong rules, and funnily enough, broken gak there was copy pasted from Tau and Eldar rules, two of the armies with incompetent writers always giving them ultra busted rules.

According to you, broken Eldar rules in 8th (specifically, aspect warriors, especially reapers, old, ugly, cheap, resin minis close to 20 years old) were supposed to sell what? Old resin gak with close to no profit made on them instead of new, shiny, expensive Eldar models? Gee, maybe, just maybe, it's Phil Kelly's incompetence, not a conspiracy. Ditto with Ynnari, utterly broken, all for the sake of (checks notes) all of three 7th edition models. And in 9th, the most broken army, Harlequins, is supposed to sell what? The new models they didn't get in 8th and 9th editions? Why not make Necrons/GSC/BT or Phobos OP to sell new plastic, but it's always the same old ugly gak people bought already ages ago?

It's almost as if cheese being always some kind of Eldar (who, totally by accident, are pet army of one of the most incompetent GW writers, Phil Kelly) would give people a clue why this is happening. But no, it's GW conspiracy to sell new models, only they give the OP cheese to oldest crap possible and it's virtually never the new models, but who cares about the facts, conspiracy it is!

I think you're wrong on several points. Custodes were downright broken in 8th(Matches were won by pure shield troops lists just holding objectives), at the start of 9th, and in their codex drop were bonkers. Death Guard were bonkers on launch. Sisters were bonkers on release, in both 8th and 9th. 9th's releases have been a constant power creep since jump street, it's not even an argument now. The go to for most of 9th has been "SUPER SPECIAL RULES GO!". First it was Melta Primaris, then it was Sisters being able to just give themselves 6s, then there were Death guard's "unstoppable movement", then it was Special Cogni Lascannons that could do more damage than a multi-melta, then GK could cast super smite that could drop a knight, then custodes were silly broken with a 4+++ and their Martial Kataas breaking the game, then Tau showed up and said F YOUR INVULNs, and on and on. Now we have Votaan who were so obviously broken that they had to be nerfed BEFORE they launched.

I get GW is super incompetent, but we're on like round 12 of Fool me once....?

Umm, 9th Edition Codexes were a power level reset. Almost every codex released had a significant increase in power as GW updated weapons and units to the new 9th Ed paradigm.

That being said, many new unit releases were meh at best. In the Sisters release only Morvenn Vahl (a supreme commander) and Celestian Sacresants (broken bodyguard mechanic) were any good. The other units were considered bad to useless.

There's clearly codex creep - but its unclear its deliberately aimed at sales.

Its unclear for instance why GW made DE the best faction for 2021. Why do they want to sell kits from 7-10 years ago, as against the current hotness (that tends to have a high RRP?) Incubi being good makes sense perhaps - but not the whole faction. Claims GW has warehouses full of stock that just sits idle for a decade seem erroneous. In part because - possibly due to Covid - they spend 2021 running out of all sorts of stock.

Its easier to argue Ad Mech flyers were really pushed. Because they are ludicrously expensive. But then they also pushed Dakkajets which were nearly £20 cheaper. Making buggies good after making them bad through 8th - then making it so you couldn't run many of them in a list - isn't obviously a master plan to maximise profits.

There's this argument that GW rolls the pitch. So they have OP stuff to sell now - then other OP stuff to sell later. Which may be right. But its hard to see how "leave the OP stuff OP forever" is good for the game. Arguably buffing the OP stuff and nerfing the UP stuff is how you'd balance a system. "Just have a perfectly balanced game" is a reasonable argument - and I'd say they have tried in 9th. Certainly more than any previous editions. Overpowered stuff gets quickly nerfed. Which isn't obviously good for sales you hope to make on the back of that reputation.

In ye old world the overpowered stuff would be good for 2-10 years. Today, Votann get a crazy book? It gets nerfed before anything but the starter box is available to order. They may get another nerf in January depending on how GW is feeling. If you are rushing out to get your hands on 15-18 flamers they may be nerfed before ever get them on the table.

We have codex creep because GW like to push the envelope - and I think they broadly think meta churn is healthy. Its unclear however they have plans to sell this specific set of grey plastic - as opposed to any other. And as such whether a faction is good or bad is probably more up to the designer's bias than some corporate sales plan.

I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

Not only that but the meta-chasers I know are often buying models second hand. They aren't building an army they are meta chasing. So they often have less attachment to their meta-armies. So if they can buy a premade army that has all they need in standard colours and such they'll go for it as its the cheaper option. Some strip and repaint or pay others to repaint them for them. But in general they are focusing on the most cost effective way to chase the meta.

So chasing the meta for GW would only make sense if the meta was only the newest of the new models; otherwise they'd be generating no actual income for themselves.

From my experience, there tends to be a skew toward "new models get the best rules" within the codices. The best units in the ork codex are the ones that have been launched in the last two editions: speed freaks buggies and warbikers (bikers having been included in the SF box), beast snagga units, kommandos, and Ghazzy. It can take an edition cycle for GW to "correct" a lackluster new product release, but there's a very noticeable jump between recent releases and old kits.

20 + years of this and people still question it is happening?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

I think most people take pts-efficiency into account when buying models, the ones who care about that more than anything else? 10000 people. Part of why it feels like a lot more people are meta chasers than they probably are is that if someone goes and gets 2 units and one of them is pts-inefficient it'll get played less and if someone has a large collection they can choose to just use the more pts-efficient units.

I don't think GW purposefully overpowering new codexes to drive sales makes sense from real world data, but it feels like they are purposefully sticking knives into the hobby with the balance and design changes they make.

I'm not a businessman, but if I were I'd tell you that you should align your business goals with the goals of buyers. A small initial barrier to entry and incentives to upgrade to huge collections would be best for GW.

Hankovitch wrote:
From my experience, there tends to be a skew toward "new models get the best rules" within the codices. The best units in the ork codex are the ones that have been launched in the last two editions: speed freaks buggies and warbikers (bikers having been included in the SF box), beast snagga units, kommandos, and Ghazzy. It can take an edition cycle for GW to "correct" a lackluster new product release, but there's a very noticeable jump between recent releases and old kits.

Which Orks haven't been good at some point in 8th or 9th? Boyz, Lootas, Gretchin, Stormboyz, Flyers and Mek Gunz are all old right? Zodgrod and Mozrog have been unviable because of their klan the whole time right? How about Wurrboys?

Meanwhile in the Tyranid codex, the best units on release were Tyranid Warriors, Raveners, Maleceptors, Hive Tyranys and Harpies, 3 of those are as old as the faction and the newest among them (Maleceptor) is still a 7th ed/5 years old release.

I'm not seeing this "new are best" on the bug's side.

 Tyran wrote:
Meanwhile in the Tyranid codex, the best units on release were Tyranid Warriors, Raveners, Maleceptors, Hive Tyranys and Harpies, 3 of those are as old as the faction and the newest among them (Maleceptor) is still a 7th ed/5 years old release.

I'm not seeing this "new are best" on the bug's side.

Agree

Craftworld:

New Dark Reapers - Bad
New Shining Spears - Bad
New Big expensive Avatar - at best situational, but mostly meh
New Ranger jetbikes - bad
New Autarch - bad
New Maugan Ra - Situational
New Guardian Defenders - Dire Avengers are better and Rangers fill the troop tax
New Storm Guardians - Bad
New Warlocks - Bad
New Rangers - Cheap Troop tax at best

Can't say that GW was pushing those models hard in the new book. People were buying Howling Banshees(relatively newish) and Swooping Hawks(ancient) at launch.

Also,conspiracies are hard to keep and GW's employment is an interesting revolving door. If GW really had this devious agenda someone would have leaked it already as they did with a single unit - the Wraithknight. It would also mean that fans seeking employment at GW would buy the Kool Aid of a underhanded agenda completely. It would mean that every single person on the line of creation is in on it which is hard to do even for the richest of companies. Also, NDAs are not in perpetuity and eventually one would speak about their time there as we saw with the AT guy a year or so.

I find it more likely that GW has a very strict cadence that leaves little to no room to playtest, that Game Designers have favorites that they smear on stronger rules, and just general human nature rather than a larger insidious conspiracy.

Maybe some context is needed here? Citing Craftworlds: Eldar as an example of bad codex creep to drive sales is a bit of a misnomer. CW:E were and always had been slightly on the very powerful side, GW knew most people who play them weren't going to be buying lots of new sets. The margins weren't there to make a killing. I think they gambled on Clowns though?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Maybe some context is needed here? Citing Craftworlds: Eldar as an example of bad codex creep to drive sales is a bit of a misnomer. CW:E were and always had been slightly on the very powerful side, GW knew most people who play them weren't going to be buying lots of new sets. The margins weren't there to make a killing. I think they gambled on Clowns though?

Historically, the worst Eldar had it was in 5th being upper mid tier.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Maybe some context is needed here? Citing Craftworlds: Eldar as an example of bad codex creep to drive sales is a bit of a misnomer. CW:E were and always had been slightly on the very powerful side, GW knew most people who play them weren't going to be buying lots of new sets. The margins weren't there to make a killing. I think they gambled on Clowns though?

Historically, the worst Eldar had it was in 5th being upper mid tier.

I think that one reason why Eldar tend to score pretty high is because they have a wide variety of unit types, which means that there's a good chance that something is what's good at a given time. They also used to have more out there unite compared to other factions and that means that there's again a better chance at having some units be overpowered. Of course, the majority of their units usually was pretty worthless but that's only relevant for most players, not for the high end tournament crowd.

Eldar also are thematically a very magitech faction, and that means special rules on top of special rules because that is the only way GW knows how to make something feel special.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Maybe some context is needed here? Citing Craftworlds: Eldar as an example of bad codex creep to drive sales is a bit of a misnomer. CW:E were and always had been slightly on the very powerful side, GW knew most people who play them weren't going to be buying lots of new sets. The margins weren't there to make a killing. I think they gambled on Clowns though?

The point is that if GW wanted to drive sales of the new fancy models they really failed at that job in the last Aeldari codex. All the stuff people are buying is old stuff that has existed for years. They even over nerfed Dark Reapers and to a slighter extent Shining Spears from the 8th edition, both of which had spanking new models with an uptick in price.

But if we want the season winrate of Craftworlds this year it stands at 47% at r/WarhammerCompetitive. So one could argue that this is the first edition they are either somewhat balanced or Phil Kelly didn't get to treat his elves with premium gak like the editions before - or he just loves clowns now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/zps1hl/meta_monday_122022_end_of_year_season_report/

 vict0988 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

I think most people take pts-efficiency into account when buying models, the ones who care about that more than anything else? 10000 people. Part of why it feels like a lot more people are meta chasers than they probably are is that if someone goes and gets 2 units and one of them is pts-inefficient it'll get played less and if someone has a large collection they can choose to just use the more pts-efficient units.

I don't think GW purposefully overpowering new codexes to drive sales makes sense from real world data, but it feels like they are purposefully sticking knives into the hobby with the balance and design changes they make.

I'm not a businessman, but if I were I'd tell you that you should align your business goals with the goals of buyers. A small initial barrier to entry and incentives to upgrade to huge collections would be best for GW.

Hankovitch wrote:
From my experience, there tends to be a skew toward "new models get the best rules" within the codices. The best units in the ork codex are the ones that have been launched in the last two editions: speed freaks buggies and warbikers (bikers having been included in the SF box), beast snagga units, kommandos, and Ghazzy. It can take an edition cycle for GW to "correct" a lackluster new product release, but there's a very noticeable jump between recent releases and old kits.

Which Orks haven't been good at some point in 8th or 9th? Boyz, Lootas, Gretchin, Stormboyz, Flyers and Mek Gunz are all old right? Zodgrod and Mozrog have been unviable because of their klan the whole time right? How about Wurrboys?

That's a fair point. The most powerful unit in the ork book come 8th were a combo of grots and Lootas. The lootas came out in 4th so have almost certainly made their production cost back and then some. Once 9th came out the Killrig was admittedly the most powerful model, only to get nerfed, then buffed right back to where it was originally. I don't bloody know what goes through the minds of GW.

 Eldarsif wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Maybe some context is needed here? Citing Craftworlds: Eldar as an example of bad codex creep to drive sales is a bit of a misnomer. CW:E were and always had been slightly on the very powerful side, GW knew most people who play them weren't going to be buying lots of new sets. The margins weren't there to make a killing. I think they gambled on Clowns though?

The point is that if GW wanted to drive sales of the new fancy models they really failed at that job in the last Aeldari codex. All the stuff people are buying is old stuff that has existed for years. They even over nerfed Dark Reapers and to a slighter extent Shining Spears from the 8th edition, both of which had spanking new models with an uptick in price.

But if we want the season winrate of Craftworlds this year it stands at 47% at r/WarhammerCompetitive. So one could argue that this is the first edition they are either somewhat balanced or Phil Kelly didn't get to treat his elves with premium gak like the editions before - or he just loves clowns now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/zps1hl/meta_monday_122022_end_of_year_season_report/

I dunno, I recall there being a good 1-2 month stretch where people where foaming at the mouth over Melta bikes, regular bikes, Dark Reapers, and Farseers MW Spam. Am I thinking of clowns?

yeah fezzik, you are thinking about clowns.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

You don't have to be majority to outspend guys who add random kit once in a while vs buying new army every couple month.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

You don't have to be majority to outspend guys who add random kit once in a while vs buying new army every couple month.

If you think the majority of meta-chasers are buying their new armies from GW, or even their FLGS you are sadly mistaken. The vast majority of meta-chasers will use eBay or borrow models from friends/other meta-chasers. Their spending is usually funded by selling off previously meta armies.

Even if they did buy from retail they really are such a tiny minority that I'd be fairly sure their individually high spending would still be eclipsed by the huge number of casual gamers and hobbyists.

3D printing will probably help the Meta chasers. That or use of Recasters.

Plus hardcore painters, modellers and the like actually tend to buy more than add a new kit once in a while. They buy more than their house can hold in my experience!

Or course anyone being so hardcore to either extreme is pretty rare. But all those anecdotes of piles of unopened boxes and plastic crack. They aint Warhammer Is A Serious Business esport types.

Slipspace wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually curious. The ones who answered "yes", how big do you think the meta-chasers are percentage wise in the gaming community? Because it feels like people are arguing that meta-chasers are a majority of the players, something that I have not experienced in my country. I'd argue that less than 1% of the player base here are meta-chasers and even then they are very selective about what they buy. They'll buy dozens and dozens of the same unit over and over again to spam and nothing else. That doesn't really sound like good business as GW does have a large SKU collection.

You don't have to be majority to outspend guys who add random kit once in a while vs buying new army every couple month.

If you think the majority of meta-chasers are buying their new armies from GW, or even their FLGS you are sadly mistaken. The vast majority of meta-chasers will use eBay or borrow models from friends/other meta-chasers. Their spending is usually funded by selling off previously meta armies.

Even if they did buy from retail they really are such a tiny minority that I'd be fairly sure their individually high spending would still be eclipsed by the huge number of casual gamers and hobbyists.

And very often those who win tournaments get prizes which amount to store credit or more model kits ( in addition to a trophy ). Even LVO doesn't have a cash prize. The only time that happens is end of season for the #1 player.

So maybe, there exist a no small group of people. Who do not go to GT, but still care for the efficiency of their armies. And those people do not buy models at random or just because they, like how they look. But try to make their armies as efficient as they get, and that is why incursor boxs are selling well, while no one buys intercessors or scouts. And to think like that you really don't have to be a 30year old upencoming GT player. You know it is like all the other games that exist. People want the best build, the best guns, run the proper class and proper spec. They don't have to be a CS:GO ranker or going for speed runs on Twitch or do world first races.
Some people just want their armies to be fun, and not do nothing durning the game. Especialy if the game is there for them to play the game, and not show off models or generaly spend time with other people.

Karol wrote:
So maybe, there exist a no small group of people. Who do not go to GT, but still care for the efficiency of their armies. And those people do not buy models at random or just because they, like how they look. But try to make their armies as efficient as they get, and that is why incursor boxs are selling well, while no one buys intercessors or scouts. And to think like that you really don't have to be a 30year old upencoming GT player. You know it is like all the other games that exist. People want the best build, the best guns, run the proper class and proper spec. They don't have to be a CS:GO ranker or going for speed runs on Twitch or do world first races.
Some people just want their armies to be fun, and not do nothing durning the game. Especialy if the game is there for them to play the game, and not show off models or generaly spend time with other people.

Yes Karol such people no doubt exist and they are no doubt around in large numbers but by your very description they arent buying loadsa models.

Well someone is buying out the top picks from the GW site in seconds. And I have my doubts that scalpers sell the models they bought to painters. Especialy in bulk.

It is like supplements. Are people outside of sports or line of work taking them? Of course, it is a bilion+ dollar industry, but then again weekend joggers and regular gym goners don't go out of their way to get their hands on czech products every month.

What you are very right about though is the fact that in my part of the world, in a few years probably only very few people are going to be buying GW models at all. People are printing and recasting so much, that there are resin shortages, we are even getting in to trouble with big organisation Polish Chamber of Steel Contructions.

Are 40k Scalpers even a thing, anymore?

Absolutely, though it's more for Ltd Ed Codexes or novels.

Honestly the Ltd Ed codex/battletome market is a bit questionable. Unless its a super popular army those can hang around a bit. I think 2X the price for just a ribbon and a few less words on the cover really isn't good value for money for most people.

On the flipside as they are 2X the cost and limited production I'm glad they don't have loads of unique stuff in them like more art, lore and pages and such.

If they were 2X the length and were meaty on lore and art and loads of amazing content then I'd see value in them, but at the same time I'd hope they'd be long term as they'd be far more desirable.


Considering the amount of archived lore and art GW has I'm honestly surprised they don't do more of that. Never take the lore and art out but make a beefier codex for factions.

Honestly? GW should just go back to making books similar to Visions of Heresy or Realms of Chaos. Keep the basics in the Codex to keep it closer to a game book and lower the price, then give the option for expanded background knowledge and make them some properly meaty tomes.
The army books for Bolt Action are good for that IMO. You get the barebones history of each army with illustrations and model pictures to give you inspiration for your stuff.

 Gert wrote:
Honestly? GW should just go back to making books similar to Visions of Heresy or Realms of Chaos. Keep the basics in the Codex to keep it closer to a game book and lower the price, then give the option for expanded background knowledge and make them some properly meaty tomes.
The army books for Bolt Action are good for that IMO. You get the barebones history of each army with illustrations and model pictures to give you inspiration for your stuff.

I think GW have a good thing with their battletomes and codex right now. It's basically a catch-all product. You get rules, a bit of painting, some photos, artwork, lore. Yes it means the base price is higher, but its an all in one introduction. Yes if you're faithful to an army over many editions much of the lore can be a repeat with smaller changes, but then you're already hooked on lore, art and game or one of them. For those new to an army its a great lure and hook.

just think how many people remain hooked and return to 40K and AoS and Old World not just because of models and rules, but because of art and lore.
Yet at the same time very few people engage with the lore directly. Consider how active the BL thread is on Dakka - consider that we only have 1 thread for it rather htan one per book released or even one per game franchise. People just prioritize lore and art lower than models - which is fair as models are what drew many of us in. So if GW cut the codex down to just the essentials for a game and a few pages of lore; it cuts down that lore and art engagement.

Just so it's clear, I'm not saying remove everything but rather we're already at the point where the background has been cut extensively from the Codexes as is with a lot of factions. I just think GW should be dropping stuff like "The Realms of Commoragh" or "Successor Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes" to bring some of that back.

My opinion of the 40k devs is too low for me to fit into this narrative; I don't think they are competent enough to pull this off intentionally.

I'm going to go out and say, the pattern shows it's pretty clearly not the case. You can look at every faction pretty much over the course of the last two editions and they miss this, usually much more often than they hit.

For 9th a very large amount of the new Necron kits were very bad for most of the edition. That 170$ Monolith? Absolute garbage ruleswise. Multiple bad HQs, Several of the Destroyer variants were awful. The Reanimator and Doomstalker lol.

Other great examples are the 9th sisters model release, half the Beastsnagga release.. The Eldar release. I'd like to point out that Dark Reapers actually got significantly worse in 9th with their new kit.

So what about Votann? They nerfed the dex over a month before the line became available. Do you really think some dinky events in Germany banning it were enough that it would actually make GW nerf this before release if their plan was powerful rules for sales? If we follow that logic they would have nerfed this several months after release and the sales were satisfied.

GW is putting way more effort into trying to have a balanced game, but they just suck at it.

 Sasori wrote:

GW is putting way more effort into trying to have a balanced game, but they just suck at it.

And their release system works against them. Changing the core rules as much as they do every 3 years means they've only a tiny window to balance things before its all change.

 Overread wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

GW is putting way more effort into trying to have a balanced game, but they just suck at it.

And their release system works against them. Changing the core rules as much as they do every 3 years means they've only a tiny window to balance things before its all change.

That's not an excuse. GW doesn't HAVE to release as they do.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

GW is putting way more effort into trying to have a balanced game, but they just suck at it.

And their release system works against them. Changing the core rules as much as they do every 3 years means they've only a tiny window to balance things before its all change.

That's not an excuse. GW doesn't HAVE to release as they do.

Sales projections, marketing and management say they do

As does this working for 35 years and ending up with them as the undisputed wargame market leader by a very significant margin




And that isn't me saying its good, nor that adjusting their release pattern and such wouldn't net increased profits and happier customers. Just that GW appears to have got where they have and their rules have always been a weakpoint.

 Overread wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

GW is putting way more effort into trying to have a balanced game, but they just suck at it.

And their release system works against them. Changing the core rules as much as they do every 3 years means they've only a tiny window to balance things before its all change.

That's not an excuse. GW doesn't HAVE to release as they do.

Sales projections, marketing and management say they do

As does this working for 35 years and ending up with them as the undisputed wargame market leader by a very significant margin

And that isn't me saying its good, nor that adjusting their release pattern and such wouldn't net increased profits and happier customers. Just that GW appears to have got where they have and their rules have always been a weakpoint.

GWs position as a market leader is A LOT to do with the inertia of being basically the first mass market tabletop wargame producer. They have like a 20 year lead on most of their major competitors and are the most visible TTWG around so they have a solid cultural foothold. If GW launched today with the rules and release model they have they would get zero traction and people would laugh 40k out of the marketplace for it's awful rules and ridiculous setting.

Let's assume that GW is actually manipulating the rules for models for sales purposes. And let's assume that they are knowingly doing it to sell otherwise unsold/unsellable models/units. My question to everyone is - "And??"

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let's assume that GW is actually manipulating the rules for models for sales purposes. And let's assume that they are knowingly doing it to sell otherwise unsold/unsellable models/units. My question to everyone is - "And??"

Boycott until they stop. I played Genshin Impact entirely free to play because of predatory business practices and spent lots in League of Legends because I felt selling cosmetics at fair prices is okay. Ineptitude is more acceptable than malice. WHFB died because people stopped buying and GW made major changes when 40k performed badly.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let's assume that GW is actually manipulating the rules for models for sales purposes. And let's assume that they are knowingly doing it to sell otherwise unsold/unsellable models/units. My question to everyone is - "And??"

I don't think it is as simple as making bad good and good bad. For marines maybe. But then they do stuff which clearly is power busting. The old playtest team, was testing the dark eldar rules, but with limited stratagems and old weapon stats. They gave feed back to GW, or at least the playtesters said they did, that the codex is very powerful. And then the DE codex dropped and it had the upgraded liquifires and dark lances no longer having the bad lascanon stats.
If GW is a business, then they could have different sales goals for different factions. They know their sells, we can only guess what sells in how high numbers, because even if something sells out we don't know if GW made 10k or 100k of a box or deal.

And the anwser to the "and?" question is important to new players. Because it brings insight in to how the company and game functions. For example. If a new player isn't in to the hobby aspect of the game, and likes the looks of an army which is bad and not one of those that GW updates often, or always well. Is it worth spending 1000$ on an army, investing time, being unhappy about the army performance etc. Maybe the player can do what GW wants them to do. Not just play one faction or one game. If they can afford it why torture yourself with a faction, which is unfun in w40k or AoS, when you can play something else. And again, if you can't do that, is it worth getting hard in to GW. This is also linked to the price hikes, pre christmas stuff at stores, in my area, suddenly went up so much, that it costs as much as stuff sold by GW online. If you can't afford a GW army, and you know how fast GW turns over armies with their seson system, then maybe you can afford a printed army at 1/4 of the cost. 250-300$ is a way different investment in to the game then 1000$+.

So understanding how GW shapes the game and its rules, how the company fixs or "breaks" them is important to not just enjoyment of the game, but in general deciding if one should even start playing a specific faction or game. For example right now, I think that while less popular, with a wierder lore, AoS is a lot more fun to start as a new player. Even if is just as complicated and sesonal as w40k, and has unfun random aspects implemented in to the game.

 Gert wrote:
The army books for Bolt Action are good for that IMO. You get the barebones history of each army with illustrations and model pictures to give you inspiration for your stuff.

Except that's kind of disingenuous comparison seeing you can find gigabytes worth of data on any WW2 military unit you want for free in seconds. BA in effect off loads all the hard dirty work on historians and hobbyists. Not that's necessarily wrong to do (I kinda liked softcover, cheaper B&W codexes of 5th edition) but GW these days tries to position itself as 'premium' product so doing the lazy minimum other wargame and skirmish companies can get away with is much harder for them. Plus, GW still does 'pure lore' books now and then, how many did you buy/read recently? Say, the look at xenos species they did as companion to BSF? Exactly...

We live in the age of the Internet Irbis. Everything you've said about WW2 can be applied to Warhammer nowadays.
As for the background books, I bought the Sabbat Worlds Crusade companion and Visions of Heresy. I wanted the BSF companion and the reprint of the Uplifting Primer but both were Lt Ed runs which made them impossible to get a handle on. Likewise popping down to WHW to get Realms of Chaos isn't just something I can do in my free time. GW hasn't actually made an effort as a company to make the background books readily available to the wider market and as someone who doesn't have the time to sit around on a Saturday morning waiting for a preorder I might never get, I'd say the only person being disingenuous is you.

There is a difference though between being able to generate the lore for your army or faction yourself, because you just want to know what the 16 core of mechanised infantry of the second belarussian front was doing in 1939 around Grodno Region. You just have to find the documents in court archives.
On the flip side, if GW doesn't generate official lore for something it does not exist.

 Irbis wrote:
Plus, GW still does 'pure lore' books now and then, how many did you buy/read recently? Say, the look at xenos species they did as companion to BSF? Exactly...

More people might have read that if it wasn't limited release and obscenely expensive.

(And for reference, I own a collector's edition of Xenology)

The same is true of art books. Whilst the prices on them are not always bad, they are still easily not a sudden impulse purchase. So when GW puts them up for sale they tend to sell out super fast if you're not hot to grab them and even "made to order" might only give you a 2 week window and then its gone.

Heck I bought the complete run of reprints of classic Inferno, but it was a huge pain dump £30 and then £50 (if I recall right) in one time payments at times that only fit GW's desires not my own. I was lucky I was able to grab them all; but you could easily have missed them if you weren't paying attention to the GW webstore for a month or if you'd had a bad month and couldn't afford them.


These limited print run windows suit GW as a firm as it means money invested is recovered very fast; but as a customer they are a nightmare.
They mean that lore and art books and easily vanish and aren't there when you want them. Eg Sabbot Worlds Crusade is a fantastic book, but if you've not yet read Gaunt's Ghosts its not really worth getting - even then its only worth it once you're a few books in and hooked.
Same as faction lore/art books - you might not have any interest in an Eldar concept sketches book until you collect Eldar.


I do wish GW would do more print runs or made to order runs or at least had some kind of quick rotation of them so that not only could you expect them to come around again ,but also have some kind of advanced warning etc..
The speed at which these books sell out shows that they are popular and that GW is likely not meeting full market demand. Furthermore making them more accessible doesn't just mean more profits for GW, but also happier fans even more hooked on the lore/art and thus even more likely to hang around and buy even more models.

I'm pretty sure that GW uses the Eldar Sketchbook as a way of actively trolling people who just want to buy a copy.

New rumours of the MFM are definitely trying to push marines again. Apparently it’s 10-20% off points for nearly every unit.

Jarms48 wrote:
New rumours of the MFM are definitely trying to push marines again. Apparently it’s 10-20% off points for nearly every unit.

That doesn't really seem relevant to the thread?

I've voted yes, but I don't think it is all that simple.

All new Codex's are not overpowered.

However, it does seem to be the case that a line that has a large new model release does get the bump, or a faction that is probably poorly selling or has had declining sales.

I also don't think this always happens either, but it does seem to happen. A lot.

Essentially, I do think management drop their needs and desires to the rules team - as there is certainly a correlation between powerful rules and sales, for example, Karskin have gone from being fairly available in the UK on the second hand market to absolutely barren everywhere. They are going for as high as £50 a squad now second hand when they do pop up.

However, evidently management doesn't always get their way...

The problem is GW has long been model-first-rules-second game manufacturering company. Which makes sense since you could drive multiple sales with models whereas you'd get the rule book once.

I personally feel like the recent change to GT format to seasonal ruleset is a great stride towards making the game more balanced , figuring out what actually works and what doesn't through these seasonal shake ups.

Having said, overpowered codice are probably due to the combination of driving sales as well as the conpany coming short of actually releasing fully playtested armies. The higher ups probably get a greedy chuckle out of it, but not with as much malicious intent as some of the posts here make it out to be.

The sesonal system is only good for two type of people. Those that got lucky and started playing a faction that GW always over buff or over nerf. Or if they have a gigantic collection already.

If a new seson starts and a 2000pts player, who potentialy saved up for 2 years to get his army, is told that now to play, at all and not even hyper efficient, he has to rebuy 800+pts of the army it becomes a unsustainable system. And for some armies it gets even worse. A chaos knight between 8th and 9th more or less had to rebuy the entire army. And this is not even that bad, there are armies which can just be bad for the seson, so to truely be safe and have fun with the game, one would not only have huge collection in a faction, but preferably multiple ones. Now I understand that for GW the idea of a 3x4000pts being the entry point for w40k is awesome as an idea. But it ain't so good for new players, and in the end run with how 3d printing is wide spread, it cuts in to GW sales. Which then blame players, for GW actions.

You do realize that low sales numbers for an army or entire faction reflects the fact that fewer people are probably playing that army/faction. A lot of people are steered away from playing armies/faction that have subpar performance on the table.

Of course GW wants to sell more models but the only way to increase sales is to increase interest. The best way to increase interest is to change either the rules of the army/faction or the points associated with their units.

If/when GW does make these changes sometimes they go overboard and sometimes they don't do enough. Very rarely they get the change done right on the first try. It's in GW's interest to make armies/factions as balanced as possible so that people invest in all of the lines and, GW hopes, they invest in multiple lines.

Karol wrote:
The sesonal system is only good for two type of people. Those that got lucky and started playing a faction that GW always over buff or over nerf. Or if they have a gigantic collection already.

But it's still way better than waiting for the next edition. My hopes is that GW is actually starting to realize its much easier to push sales for multiple 1k armies ($300~$600) rather than a single large army ($700~$1000).

When you have a min-maxed army for a particular faction, what winds up happening is just as you describe - you wait until your army becomes OP again thru the OP codex cycle that typically begins towards end of an edition and into the next.

GW always comes up with the next big thing for your army, but what they fail to realize is that factions only have so many units of which only handful are viable/competitive/cool looking that people end up buying anyways.

Outside of hyper competitive players that swap out entire rosters, most people build their core 2k and have another 500~1500 worth of shiny new things on the side to swap out units as needed. Then they play the waiting game - for the next shiny thing and/or OP codex. Not many people own multiple 2k pt armies fpr the sake of playing the next hot faction because 2k army is a financial commitment not everyone is willing to partake multiple times.This means a typical 40k players' model purchases will be limited to about 3.5~4k pts.

In my experiences, 2k games always end up with single throwaway unit parked on each of your quadrants to grab objectives while providing whimsical ranged support, while you push rest of the army forward. They're typically one dimensional and reward playing statistics, and none for strategical placement of your units other than the secondaries like linebreaker. 2k games essentially boil down to this: How much of your enemy can you destroy by turn 3? How uneven can you make the battlefield with the first two turns? At the top of T4, the battlefield typically resembles a 1k pt game, but on a huge board where units with low M and low range are practically neglibile for the rest of the game if they werent yet in position.

Going back the main point, I've been playing alot of 1k games since nephilim and I have to say 1k is where strategic game play is most rewarded. Assault phase feels way more engaging (since fights can happen in T1 for ANY faction as deployment/dice rolls allow) and doesn't feel like you're just throwing away units (by virtue of having to footslog into fight by turn 3~4, i.e. berserkers ejected from dead rhino @T1), shooting is much more balanced out as 24" range is already sufficient as long as you control the center of the board, smaller unit count forces smarter plays from both parties, and smaller board allows most objectives (primary & secondaries) to be within reachable ranges where they can be achieved with reasonable effort during T1.

Also, a true TAC list is hard to come by at this bracket, forcing everyone to bring their take on a skew. This is then shaken up by the fact that critical massing & wombo comboing key units is that much harder due to point restrictions, limiting the skewness of the skew. Shorter games mean you can play more games trying out different tactics.

Oh, and the best part: PISTOLS MATTER.

Owning multiple 1k army FEELS much more feasible, even though at the end of the day, it still costs me just as much as a single large army. I already have a list of 5~6 1k armies I'd be interested in buying WITHOUT a OP codex driving the sale.

Jarms48 wrote:
New rumours of the MFM are definitely trying to push marines again. Apparently it’s 10-20% off points for nearly every unit.

So casting rumored values aside - if marines are doing poorly outside of faction specific units then they should probably get point decreases. Moreso if they're losing AoC, right?

Why would you consider this to be pushing marines instead of fixing marines?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If/when GW does make these changes sometimes they go overboard and sometimes they don't do enough. Very rarely they get the change done right on the first try. It's in GW's interest to make armies/factions as balanced as possible so that people invest in all of the lines and, GW hopes, they invest in multiple lines.

One of the best way GW gets people invested in multiple lines is by putting out those ( relatively speaking ) dirt cheap starter boxes. I probably would never have owned as many primaris and necrons without the last one.

I support 1000 pt games. Half out of necessity, since I only have 2 Killteam boards and table space, but being selective in which units I bring means my lists can vary each game rather than stick to one formula.

I'm so happy to see the community starting to embrace 1,000 point games, and the associated tourney stuff.

The community is doing this for several years now
But because 1000 point tournaments are not official events or at the large cons, most people don't care

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm so happy to see the community starting to embrace 1,000 point games, and the associated tourney stuff.

 kodos wrote:
The community is doing this for several years now
But because 1000 point tournaments are not official events or at the large cons, most people don't care

I've always been an advocate for going back to 1.5k format, but 1k is even better than the old 1.5k games.

However, where 1k games truly shine is under nephilim ruleset with less starting CP.

In non-nephilim 2k games you can bring everything you want plus redundancies. Then you blow like 6~10 CP's in your opening turn wombo combo, and trades are more or less meaningless because they're not really trades but simply throwing away expendable units due to redundancies.

 kodos wrote:
The community is doing this for several years now
But because 1000 point tournaments are not official events or at the large cons, most people don't care

Why aren't they official events?
The GT books explicitly have half the book for 1,000 point games.

ask the TOs

I just know that in the wider area has 40k tournament series is splitted between an official ITC Masters series that has 2000 points game and another 1250 points series and playing one does not count for the other (mainly because they use different rules, like playing on same table size as 2k points etc)

for the local scene, the 1250 points not counting for the overall masters series was reason enough of not doing them at all, no matter that initial more players wanted the smaller games


things changed with Covid and by now as everything re-stared I don't know of any tournament that uses less than 2k points because local TOs focus on large few large events rather than many smaller ones and therefore only 2k is worth doing it

The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

I disagree. I have played a lot of game sizes (in 40k from Combat Patrol to massive 2-days long, 8-player, 20.000pts affairs) and it's definitely the case, that the higher point limit, the better the balance. The most powerful abilities, instead of affecting (and deciding) entire battles, affect only a tiny portion of the battlefield, the same goes for absurdly improbable dice rolls. Most players' collections also limit how optimised a very large army can be fielded by them.

Indeed. There's 2 sides to this though.

Smaller games can be more vulnerable to skew, unless you do some work at the front end to mitigate.

When I played warmchine competitively, the 3 main points levels were 25, 35 and 50pts. Equivalent, maybe to 1000,1500 and, say 1850.

While wmh, in gwneral, was a game with a lot of 'silver bullets', At the lower levels it was magnified greatly as you just would not have enough stuff to.shut down something- (eg karchev jack/armour skew or goreshade with his free banes) that skew would shut you down - you'd need higher points levels to build in the ancilliary pieces to 'round out' your list.

That said, I've experienced something of the same the other way too.back in 4th ed 40k, the tau 'power' build was 3 hammerheads, kroot, ic-abusing hq suita plus other stuff. About 90% of the 'heavy lifting' was done by the hammerheads. And you'd max out at 3. At 1000pts, you had 'peak' efficiency. At any higher levels you were filling points with far-less-than-optimum options so your performance dropped off whilst everyone elses tended to get better.

This is not ro say that smaller games are 'less' fun. Or that larger games are 'less' fun either. Bit of front end work is needed in both imo

1k is fun when you aren't playing super competitive but as soon you turn up the heat it quickly devolves in rock paper scissors between the handful of players that decide to skew.

GW definitely uses rules design to manipulate sales, just not in the simplistic way angry wargamers tend to whine about. Some of these theories are so naive and tunnel visioned, it's almost endearing.

Well, that the game is skewed if you use the official tournament rules from GW, no matter which points

That lower points are worse because GW does even care less than for 2k is not the problem of lower points but not adjusting the rules

750-1000 point games work well since 3rd edition, or casual and competitive play, simple because no one used the event rules from GW for that size

 kodos wrote:
Well, that the game is skewed if you use the official tournament rules from GW, no matter which points

That lower points are worse because GW does even care less than for 2k is not the problem of lower points but not adjusting the rules

750-1000 point games work well since 3rd edition, or casual and competitive play, simple because no one used the event rules from GW for that size

Not really sure this is right for the reasons said. Skew is different from say points imbalance.

At around 1k points I can bring say a Tank Commander, 2 Leman Russ and 2 Rogal Dorn tanks. I don't think this is an especially overpowered combination - but if you have a balanced list of say 2-3 characters, 3 units of troops, and some more specialised stuff, its possible you can do very little to reliably hurt my tanks.

But equally, if you did put half your points into dedicated anti-tank, you are going to end up looking a bit hopeless against say an Ork list with 90~ Boyz or a GSC list with 120 neophytes etc.

Basically this is far more rock paper scissors than the higher points values, when the FOC and Rule of 3 etc start to lean on you.
Which is in turn why when we talk about 40k's issues, we talk about imbalances - i.e. this is too good for its points - rather than "Mech wall skews are broken", "Assault is too powerful" etc. There's almost always efficient and inefficient units of every type across the game.

 skchsan wrote:

Karol wrote:
The sesonal system is only good for two type of people. Those that got lucky and started playing a faction that GW always over buff or over nerf. Or if they have a gigantic collection already.

But it's still way better than waiting for the next edition. My hopes is that GW is actually starting to realize its much easier to push sales for multiple 1k armies ($300~$600) rather than a single large army ($700~$1000).

When you have a min-maxed army for a particular faction, what winds up happening is just as you describe - you wait until your army becomes OP again thru the OP codex cycle that typically begins towards end of an edition and into the next.


Outside of hyper competitive players that swap out entire rosters, most people build their core 2k and have another 500~1500 worth of shiny new things on the side to swap out units as needed. Then they play the waiting game - for the next shiny thing and/or OP codex. Not many people own multiple 2k pt armies fpr the sake of playing the next hot faction because 2k army is a financial commitment not everyone is willing to partake multiple times.This means a typical 40k players' model purchases will be limited to about 3.5~4k pts.



Going back the main point, I've been playing alot of 1k games since nephilim and I have to say 1k is where strategic game play is most rewarded. Assault phase feels way more engaging (since fights can happen in T1 for ANY faction as deployment/dice rolls allow) and doesn't feel like you're just throwing away units (by virtue of having to footslog into fight by turn 3~4, i.e. berserkers ejected from dead rhino @T1), shooting is much more balanced out as 24" range is already sufficient as long as you control the center of the board, smaller unit count forces smarter plays from both parties, and smaller board allows most objectives (primary & secondaries) to be within reachable ranges where they can be achieved with reasonable effort during T1.

But if your army is bad, you more or less have to wait for the next edition. There were multiple sesons in 9th. In which could a Imperial Fist player say, I had fun in this one? If someone started Mechanicus after they got nerfed in to the ground then no amount of reverting of nerfs helps, when the book is just going both against the updated core rules system, and has to play against armies which have both more power, and were clearly designed in mind with the new systems in mind.

GW always comes up with the next big thing for your army, but what they fail to realize is that factions only have so many units of which only handful are viable/competitive/cool looking that people end up buying anyways.

That depends on the faction. With GK, the army to play right now, is more or less the same army which was played out of the index in 8th ed. DA still play win armies. BA play their faction stuff as do the SW, and if they could not take anything of the new model lines, they wouldn't. And I don't think people fail to realise how the factions play or function. Maybe in the past it was like that. Now there is too many sites dedicated to w40k, to many tournaments, stats etc being run and someone that starts and want to play the game just gets stuff on a platter, they don't have to wonder how to make melee scouts or reavers viable in a marine list. The community of thousands , potentialy tens of thousands of people already did that for them, and the anwser is they do not work. Maybe it is a bit confusing for people that have to read about lists at the same time as people telling them to "play what they want", but I don't have it has much impact on younger player. People are too jaded to fall for stuff like that. And if they do, well I can feel for them, but GW games are the way they are.

In my experiences, 2k games always end up with single throwaway unit parked on each of your quadrants to grab objectives while providing whimsical ranged support, while you push rest of the army forward. They're typically one dimensional and reward playing statistics, and none for strategical placement of your units other than the secondaries like linebreaker. 2k games essentially boil down to this: How much of your enemy can you destroy by turn 3? How uneven can you make the battlefield with the first two turns? At the top of T4, the battlefield typically resembles a 1k pt game, but on a huge board where units with low M and low range are practically neglibile for the rest of the game if they werent yet in position.

For armies which are considered good, bar hard counters which often are not played, the "how much you can score/destroy" is anwsered with "enough for the opponent to be mathematicaly impossible to win on avarge". Plus because people are bad at reading stats and understanding what a 10% win rate, or more, really is, we get a situation where people think that something like 45% vs 53% win rate difference can be covered up by skill. And then they try to translate it to store games, which of course doesn't work.

Owning multiple 1k army FEELS much more feasible, even though at the end of the day, it still costs me just as much as a single large army. I already have a list of 5~6 1k armies I'd be interested in buying WITHOUT a OP codex driving the sale.

I do think that is what GW expects from their customers. And for a chunk of the player base it doesn't really matter. But go try to tell a 14y old that the entry for the game is not 2000pts, but rather 3-4 armies, potentialy for more then one system, just in case one turns sour. Yeah just invest 4-5k in to models, then paint them and then you can start playing for real. And , unless you are printing those models, you will achive the state in your late 20s, with considerable number of players never getting to moment when they can have fun with what they paid for. But I guess no one at GW cares what is going to happen in 20-25 years, when the current pillar of game the 30y olds hit pension age and the new blood is not coming in large enough numbers to support the game.

Also, a true TAC list is hard to come by at this bracket, forcing everyone to bring their take on a skew. This is then shaken up by the fact that critical massing & wombo comboing key units is that much harder due to point restrictions, limiting the skewness of the skew. Shorter games mean you can play more games trying out different tactics.

Oh, and the best part: PISTOLS MATTER.

I don't mind skew lists as long as each factions gets one, and there is more then 2-3 of them in the entire game. Because otherwise is creates tiers where playing specific armies just doesn't make sense at all. Smallers games are faster then big games, but they are not fun for people with elite armies. In general w40k scales bad up, but scales horribly down. Some armies come with preconsctructs where for the army to function batches of 1200 or even more points of models have to be build. At the same time other armies, always aggresivly costed, have absolutly no problem being played in smaller point games. Especialy when objectives scale for those armies favourable too. A two heroes and two units of terminators, is not as fun to play as an harlequin army or IG which spams kasarkin, and just cuts slots to play less then 2000pts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel 808031 11472260 wrote:
Not really sure this is right for the reasons said. Skew is different from say points imbalance.

At around 1k points I can bring say a Tank Commander, 2 Leman Russ and 2 Rogal Dorn tanks. I don't think this is an especially overpowered combination - but if you have a balanced list of say 2-3 characters, 3 units of troops, and some more specialised stuff, its possible you can do very little to reliably hurt my tanks.

But equally, if you did put half your points into dedicated anti-tank, you are going to end up looking a bit hopeless against say an Ork list with 90~ Boyz or a GSC list with 120 neophytes etc.

Basically this is far more rock paper scissors than the higher points values, when the FOC and Rule of 3 etc start to lean on you.
Which is in turn why when we talk about 40k's issues, we talk about imbalances - i.e. this is too good for its points - rather than "Mech wall skews are broken", "Assault is too powerful" etc. There's almost always efficient and inefficient units of every type across the game.

A lot of marines and almost all elite armies are not going to have 3 units and specific stuff, on top 3 characters in 1000pts. Now there are hyper efficient armies with units that can do everything, melee, range, fast moving and objective grabing on top of that GW gave them cheap support units that work vs everything, often thanks to MW mechanics or upgraded damage ability. And the problems of armies like marines is that in low point games, which in todays world seem to be even 2000pts for some marine factions, they lose to everything. To melee armies, to shoting armies, to hordes, to armies that focus on taking objectives etc And especialy if someone tries to build something non tournament. To work in the setting we have right now marines would require either free transports, which would be devastating to the wallets of any new marine player, or the release of hyper efficient melee units, which are also fast. So primaris jet pack units, bikers squads bigger then 3 with sgts being able to take weapons for melee, heroes that can take packs or bikes, and who also hit above their points costs.

Karol wrote:
A lot of marines and almost all elite armies are not going to have 3 units and specific stuff, on top 3 characters in 1000pts. Now there are hyper efficient armies with units that can do everything, melee, range, fast moving and objective grabing on top of that GW gave them cheap support units that work vs everything, often thanks to MW mechanics or upgraded damage ability. And the problems of armies like marines is that in low point games, which in todays world seem to be even 2000pts for some marine factions, they lose to everything. To melee armies, to shoting armies, to hordes, to armies that focus on taking objectives etc And especialy if someone tries to build something non tournament. To work in the setting we have right now marines would require either free transports, which would be devastating to the wallets of any new marine player, or the release of hyper efficient melee units, which are also fast. So primaris jet pack units, bikers squads bigger then 3 with sgts being able to take weapons for melee, heroes that can take packs or bikes, and who also hit above their points costs.

Not sure I agree. Marines are clearly not great at the moment - but you can make a list for 1000 points with a mix of stuff.

For example you could take something like:
SM Captain
SM Lieutenant
2*5 Assault Intercessors
5 Intercessors
3 Aggressors
3 Eliminators
3 Suppressors
1 Gladiator Valiant

Is it very good? Probably not - because Marines aren't and I don't think this is even focussing on the better Marine stuff. But its a varied 1k points army with 2 characters, 3 troops units, a tank, a mix of shooting profiles and a bit of assault potential.

Why would you buy the list when a csm army will just automaticly win against you by virtue of of fight on death being a superior trait, to anything any marine army can have. Including the sub factions that are considered to be doing well. And it is not just one army, walk the dogs lists at 1000 same problem, epecialy if they take abadon who can just walk through 1000pts of marines on his own. Any fast moving army like tau, various eldar etc the list is never reaching melee, never really killing anything at range. And then there is tyranids, necrons, SoB etc It just turns in to a question of why did I spend X money on this models. And this isn't even a new question. Marines were bad through out most of 8th edition too. So if someone were like me and started to play back then, they are in their second edition of no fun. There are limits to how long someone can be okey with getting farmed by other players. On top of that the other faction players, those with good armies, who are having fun, are neither obligated to change doing what they like, nor will the probably want to, considering that they themselfs are having fun.

I had a chuckle at the Valiant. I had to check what that actualy is. thought that maybe it was that huge primaris super tank used form some unchargable tricks, but that brick costs hundrads of points.

Because once again, not everyone plays in competitive groups where min-maxing and net listing are the only way to play.
It's almost like this has been explained to you about a thousand times.

Yeah, I mean, not all CSM do the "fight on death" thing. Maybe the Loyalist Scum player gets lucky and the CSM player is playing Night Lords, and they can just laugh as the Night Lords Legion trait does basically nothing to their army.

Where is fight on death still a thing? I play EC and my noise marines, who used to have it, lost it a couple of updates ago.

Creations of Bile Legion trait (also adds +1 to movement and strength).

Cyel wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

I disagree. I have played a lot of game sizes (in 40k from Combat Patrol to massive 2-days long, 8-player, 20.000pts affairs) and it's definitely the case, that the higher point limit, the better the balance. The most powerful abilities, instead of affecting (and deciding) entire battles, affect only a tiny portion of the battlefield, the same goes for absurdly improbable dice rolls. Most players' collections also limit how optimised a very large army can be fielded by them.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. It IS an argument that's been used against playing larger game sizes.

 Gert wrote:
Because once again, not everyone plays in competitive groups where min-maxing and net listing are the only way to play.
It's almost like this has been explained to you about a thousand times.

yes, the minority. Especialy if you count the number of people that stay playing the game. A CoB army will blow the marine player off the table, in melee, but other marine builds will do it too. The army is just writen better by GW.Taking a unit of terminators or possessed in a csm list doesn't require net listing either.
And it is not like some other armies that have one, often rare match up which is bad. Practicaly everything is a bad match up for a marine player. It says volumes about the book, that the way to play RG or SW is to not play RG or SW, but rather their successor.

ccs wrote:

Cyel wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

I disagree. I have played a lot of game sizes (in 40k from Combat Patrol to massive 2-days long, 8-player, 20.000pts affairs) and it's definitely the case, that the higher point limit, the better the balance. The most powerful abilities, instead of affecting (and deciding) entire battles, affect only a tiny portion of the battlefield, the same goes for absurdly improbable dice rolls. Most players' collections also limit how optimised a very large army can be fielded by them.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. It IS an argument that's been used against playing larger game sizes.

It matters if the argument is flawed. You can make any argument you want, supported or unsupported by as many facts and opinions as you want, but the validity of the argument is what matters, not whether it was made or not. From my experience, and from seeing other attempts at smaller points value tournaments in various editions, there is a point where the size of the game becomes too small to be balanced because of the power level of certain units skewing the game. There's probably a debate to be had about where that break point is. Note this doesn't mean 2k is perfectly balanced, just that it's considered more balanced than 1k for competitive play.

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Because once again, not everyone plays in competitive groups where min-maxing and net listing are the only way to play.
It's almost like this has been explained to you about a thousand times.

yes, the minority. Especialy if you count the number of people that stay playing the game.

Once again, for the thousand and first time, you're wrong.

The vast majority of people playing 40k never attend tournaments, they don't follow the meta and they quite often buy bad units, even entire bad armies. In many cases they're oblivious to how bad these armies are, because they're playing against similar armies and like-minded people. Problems occur when they choose a truly terrible army, or come up against someone who is more in tune with the current meta. Mostly, this doesn't happen that often.

Slipspace wrote:
The vast majority of people playing 40k never attend tournaments, they don't follow the meta and they quite often buy bad units, even entire bad armies. In many cases they're oblivious to how bad these armies are, because they're playing against similar armies and like-minded people. Problems occur when they choose a truly terrible army, or come up against someone who is more in tune with the current meta. Mostly, this doesn't happen that often.

I think the major issue with casual groups is that some will be more into 40k than others. There's typically a gulf of skill between someone who plays a game of 40k once every 6 months, and otherwise doesn't think about it - and people who spend every other weekend playing and the rest of time following the competitive/professional meta via videos, forums etc. The first player gets smashed by the second - and then goes away thinking its all about the net lists. But really its that the second player is just a lot better and would have beaten them running anything.

When you look at a top list today, its usually not just "my maths is much better than your maths" (Flamers aside perhaps). Their strengths are usually in its functionality. You need to know how to use that to score and win the game - and deny your opponent doing the same.

If both players don't really know what they are doing, and are making loads of mistakes/suboptimal decisions, then I don't think the balance is that far out of whack. Certainly its better than most phases of previous editions have been.

Admittedly you can have a terrible army - but I feel its usually kind of contrived. "Here's my 30 Reivers" etc.

Karol wrote:
yes, the minority.

No. A thousand times no. Like not even close to reality. There are more people who just build and paint 40k models than play 40k competitively.
The Comp crowd, however, is very loud and very active on Facebook and Forums, which makes people think they are the dominant grouping of 40k hobbyists.
Threads on rules interactions or discussions about the game last longer because they are often contentious topics where people have lots of different opinions that they can argue about for weeks. That doesn't happen with people posting Bat Reps, models, or armies because it's a very binary interaction of "Here is my stuff" and "Cool". The same thing (generally) goes for background discussion where someone asks "What is Thing?" and people answer "This is Thing".
There is also a significant difference between playing a game and wanting to win it and playing the game with the intention of winning at all costs.

Also when it comes to discussions of balance its better to talk about the game at the top end of play where its being played as intended because it gives you a more finite style of play that can be repeated and tested and such.

So balance chat often revolves around the competitive end. The gains and losses then filter down into the other levels.


But yeah if you think that people only play 40K competitively or not at all then whilst that might be true at some local levels, it is far from the normal for the majority of GW's customers.

If GW really were being played that heavily at the competitive end only, GW would have had to have improved their rules writing decades ago to keep up.




Consider football. The vast amount of chat about football is often the competitive end; but for all those footballers paid vast fortunes to kick a ball around; the number of people playing football casually is VASTLY greater. Overwhelmingly vastly greater.

its so painfully obvious that 98% of the "1k is worse than 2k" party never actually played 1k incursion games. What you're forgetting in your couch crusade theroycrafting are board size, terrain density and deployment zones.

Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60. However in practice, it feels more like 1/3 once the terrain has been set up because terrain density doesn't decrease linearly as the board (you don't just half the number of terrain compared to strikeforce). The terrain density ends up being a bit denser than typical strike force set up. In some missions, deployment area is so small that your entire army is set up base-to-base.

In incursion:
1. Getting trapped in your own deployment zone is a real thing and an actual threat. The "sit back and shoot away" strategy doesn't work in incursion. You don't have enough guns to fully prevent your opponents from playing objectives. You NEED to play the map and actively contest objectives.
2. There is no target priority - EVERYTHING is a threat and EVERYTHING is in range in a single movement phase. If you aren't playing smart, you can lose a significant portion of your army and/or get so far behind in points that it's impossible to win.
3. There is a limit to specialization. There is no such thing as impenetrable fodder wall nor is there unstoppable force due to inability to critical mass them. Skews on paper NEVER work out as you planned in an incursion game because probability curve can't normalize under smaller sample size.

I implore you to just try setting up an army according to incursion missions and you'll immediately see how different the game becomes.

Whatever seems OP on paper/codex isn't as overpowered in smaller games. OP units only truly become OP once you've applied all available force multipliers and wombo combo the crap out of them.

If you really want an ACTUAL example of OP, that would be some BS shenanigans like GK termi wound juggling of the old. Some thing is OP when there is a systematic issue with how the game is played with a certain unit, not when a unit just happens to be super cost effective.

IG horde army was systematically broken at the start of 8th ed by the virtue of abusing the fall back rule and dirty cheap throwaway fodder that made it impossible to have your own shooting phase. Now THAT'S OP

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Slipspace wrote:

ccs wrote:

Cyel wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

I disagree. I have played a lot of game sizes (in 40k from Combat Patrol to massive 2-days long, 8-player, 20.000pts affairs) and it's definitely the case, that the higher point limit, the better the balance. The most powerful abilities, instead of affecting (and deciding) entire battles, affect only a tiny portion of the battlefield, the same goes for absurdly improbable dice rolls. Most players' collections also limit how optimised a very large army can be fielded by them.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. It IS an argument that's been used against playing larger game sizes.

It matters if the argument is flawed.

No, your opinion of wether or not it's valid doesn't have anything to do with it. Wether the people who made it are right or wrong doesn't matter either. They made the claim & it exists. I told you it exists.
If you need to debate the merits of their claim you'll have to take it up with them, not me (it's not my argument or position).
BTW, I can skew a list at any size. So whoever's right....

Btw, this applies to every miniature wargame I've played. It's just that impact of an overpowered unit is dilluted by the size of the game. For example in Warmachine many warcasters' feats are crushingly powerful, but not if they only affect 1/4of the battlefield instead of the entirety of it.

Cyel wrote:
Btw, this applies to every miniature wargame I've played. It's just that impact of an overpowered unit is dilluted by the size of the game. For example in Warmachine many warcasters' feats are crushingly powerful, but not if they only affect 1/4of the battlefield instead of the entirety of it.

That's only half of the 'bigger picture' though. Sometimes its a 'system' issue. See my example of tau in 4th ed. 40k.

The tau 'maxed out' in their power at 1000pts with 3 hammerheads. Increasing the point level meant taking options that were less than ideal. At 1500 the tau were taking a load of bloat to make up the points whilst the 'power builds' of the day (iron warriors etc) were only getting into their stride. You could argue that the iron warriors list was broken (it was) and it shouldn't exist (it shouldn't have), you could also argue thevtau were severely limited by the restrictions of the old foc which limited their 'heavy' slots and 'good' choices (also true) as well as other options being too expensive and lacking low-ap weapons (also true), and the tau codex power level being fairly mediocre overall, especially towards the end of the edition (very true). This absolutely effected their ability to.counter the power units in turn.

I'm.not saying this to critique your point- you're not wrong cyel. My experiences in wmh for example mirrored yours. Goreshade1 at 15pts was brutal. At 50 he was a cake walk. I'm just pointing out the bigger the game the more diluted the power units isn't strictly true all of the time.

Voss wrote:
Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been.

They're stuck in a Catch-222 there. They've got a three way mutually exclusive problem. They want to make the board smaller, but feel larger, while the models get bigger and move slower. And they're often not very good at what they do. Reivers are basically really bad assault marines that only get to jump once and even then, its only sort of. Combine that with their release coinciding with the time GW really dropped the ball on the close combat phase and they never had a chance. Primaris Jump infantry? All Shooters. Inceptors and Suppresors. Primaris Close Combat? All Foot Sloggers - Aggresors and Bladeguard (which were something like wave four or five of Primaris) and often slow (aggressors) with limited transport options(Repulsor not Impulsor which didn't even exist until recently). No Drop Pod, No Teleportarium, No Stormraven. Give Reivers with both graps and gravs (at roughly the same price point as Assault Marines) the benefit of Jump Packs and they start looking decent. Plus they still found a way to sell a bunch of Reivers by putting them in every boxed set ever. Kill Team dropping? Add some Reivers. Space Wolves Patrol box? Add some Reivers. Tyranid Christmas Army Box? Add some Reivers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


The tau 'maxed out' in their power at 1000pts with 3 hammerheads. Increasing the point level meant taking options that were less than ideal. At 1500 the tau were taking a load of bloat to make up the points whilst the 'power builds' of the day (iron warriors etc) were only getting into their stride. You could argue that the iron warriors list was broken (it was) and it shouldn't exist (it shouldn't have), you could also argue thevtau were severely limited by the restrictions of the old foc which limited their 'heavy' slots and 'good' choices (also true) as well as other options being too expensive and lacking low-ap weapons (also true), and the tau codex power level being fairly mediocre overall, especially towards the end of the edition (very true). This absolutely effected their ability to.counter the power units in turn.

I'm.not saying this to critique your point- you're not wrong cyel. My experiences in wmh for example mirrored yours. Goreshade1 at 15pts was brutal. At 50 he was a cake walk. I'm just pointing out the bigger the game the more diluted the power units isn't strictly true all of the time.

You could also say that the Iron Warriors (and other armies with high cost basic units) were hamstrung by not being able to get up and running in less than 1500 points. It goes both directions and happens every edition. Ever try making an Imperial Knights Kill Team?

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.