Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


New models are generally OP because they want them to sell.

I bet I can find more examples of recent new models that had over-costed or ineffective rules on release than you can find new OP models. Like, it won't even be difficult.

Crack on with that mate.

I've done this list before. You'd be surprised.

Not replying to this post because it might take too long to research your points would be a fair way to concede the argument.

However replying to say you've done this before then not posting that information is a much better way to concede the argument, thank you.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Oh yes. That makes way more sense. Despite a statement from an ex employee literally explaining how management told him to point a unit so it sold more, the truth is that a particular person who works for GW loves his 'pet faction' so much he writes rules so he always wins. Its gotta be that! How silly we have been to not see this obvious truth.

Failing to address the points made by others and instead resorting to sarcasm is also a great way to concede. Good job!

Speaking of Chapter Approved, the Castellan is going down 50pts? Didn't it just go up 50pts in 2018?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
(with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph)

Which died to a stiff breeze and apparently lead to the entire army being nerfed into oblivion due to turn 1 ambush being disallowed.

Despite the screaming, kelermorphs at best killed a character and then promptly died. If anything they're a great example of just how much offense is under valued right now, but no more broken than the cost of a lascannon.

The Kelermorph is my go-to example for people overreacting to rules taken out of context.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

In general, I agree with you that the "GW just makes new models OP to sell them" argument is not very strong for the reasons you point out, however I would like to add a counter that somewhat supports it:
Intercessor and Aggressors may be a few years old by now, but Primaris in general are all new in the perspective of 40K's decade long history (and several kits still being over a decade old), so you could very well consider all 4 of those units you lists as "new kits" the GW wants us to buy more of. From a certain point of view.

But to counter my counter, I think the real reason "new models are OP" is a mix of GW not getting the rules right at first and erring on the side of "it's new, so lets make it good, we can fix it later" and the perception of new models often showing up in disproportionate quantities as players try them out and opponents not quite knowing how to react to them at first.
So with the exceptions of some outliers (like the Castellan) MOST new kits truly are not OP

-

 EnTyme wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
(with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph)

Which died to a stiff breeze and apparently lead to the entire army being nerfed into oblivion due to turn 1 ambush being disallowed.

Despite the screaming, kelermorphs at best killed a character and then promptly died. If anything they're a great example of just how much offense is under valued right now, but no more broken than the cost of a lascannon.

The Kelermorph is my go-to example for people overreacting to rules taken out of context.

Speak for yourself. Here in Spain we are trying to survive in the wasteland that has been made from the Kelermorph damage 2 pistols. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smile. Thats what we are now. Nothing more than survivors, haunted by the ghosts of what could have been.

Kelermorph just wasn't very fun to play against, precisely because there's little ways to interact with it.

But ultimately, that's the same problem plaguing things like Drone-protected Tau, -2-to-charge-flying-tanks, etc.., etc.

There's not a lot of ways you can "outplay" them in ways you could tag a non-flying tank or get around a Knight's invul-protection through CC or a spell or whatever (unless your opponent makes a mistake). All you can do is "math" through them, and either your army's math is better or your opponent's is better. There's no "game" there for the most part, unfortunately, and this no "skill" beyond rolling the dice.

GW needs to bring back more tangible weaknesses for units again, roll-back all the abilities for units to ignore modifiers, ignore damage tables, morale, etc.. those were all the "core game" mechanisms meant to give player interaction and disadvantage the opponent: make his heavy weapons move. Make his Tanks degrade or tag them. Make his units take morale saves. Etc.. There's just too many ways now to just ignore all that.

 Galef wrote:
In general, I agree with you that the "GW just makes new models OP to sell them" argument is not very strong for the reasons you point out, however I would like to add a counter that somewhat supports it:
Intercessor and Aggressors may be a few years old by now, but Primaris in general are all new in the perspective of 40K's decade long history (and several kits still being over a decade old), so you could very well consider all 4 of those units you lists as "new kits" the GW wants us to buy more of. From a certain point of view.

I think that the writing is on the wall that mini marines will be increasingly sidelined. Perhaps not to Legends any time soon, but they will receive no new models, and they may even split the codex. Primaris on their own have a deeper unit selection than many other codex armies (Harlies, GSC, Admech, Knights, Chaos Knights, Thousand Sons, Custodes, Sisters, and Death Guard), but I think they are getting more of the "space marines get it first" treatment rather than "new Models are OP." Remember that at the dawn of 8th, when only marines and DG had a codex, they were really good.

But to counter my counter, I think the real reason "new models are OP" is a mix of GW not getting the rules right at first and erring on the side of "it's new, so lets make it good, we can fix it later" and the perception of new models often showing up in disproportionate quantities as players try them out and opponents not quite knowing how to react to them at first.
So with the exceptions of some outliers (like the Castellan) MOST new kits truly are not OP -

So, new kits, outside of the occasional refresh, will require new rules. Anything with new rules will have rules written for the current ecosystem. It's the same thing with codex creep: newer codices will have tools to handle older codices, while the opposite is often not true.

Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

GW has really struggled to find room for melee units in 8th edition.

 Polonius wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

GW has really struggled to find room for melee units in 8th edition.

That wasn't even struggling to find room, that was mroe a case of we can't be bothered.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

Hell, those Banshees come with a no-Banshee-mask build-option which was advertised front-page on Warhammer Community as a unique Ynnari-build ... and that still doesn't have rules at all thus far!!!

Anybody who thinks GW is a company that is trying to maximize profits by making over powered units is a person that hasn't been in the game for long.

GW balances their units all over the place and even when they make things OP enough to sell hotcakes they screw up the release so much that they'll probably not get that much money to begin with. They released the Arch-Regent in Carrion Empire and it was an overnight sensation. If they really wanted to capitalize on its success they would have sold blisters as carrion empires was sold out soon enough. Do we have a blister 8 months later even if the unit is almost mandatory for FEC lists? No, we don't.

We have countless kits that had horrible rules on release or good units that never even got a proper kit until much later.

Plus this "Make OP to sell more" argument is entirely self-defeating. It means GW can't better balance a bad unit without being called profiteers and they can't not balance it without being called profiteers because they are making other units/factions look better. So going by that the best move GW could do is not to play, but even then the same people would complain about GW hating Orks or whatever faction they are playing. Haters gonna hate as the song goes.

In short, the people who complain like this will literally complain about any single thing GW does.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

Or the massive sisters release that while a lot of fun, and decent enough, are hardly top tier.

For every new model that is the new hotness there are ten who are meh at best.

New units OP?

CSM:
Competitive:
Lord Discordant
Abaddon

Okay (for some also bad):
Master of Possession
Master of Execution
Haarken Worldclaimer
Venomcrawler
Greater Possessed
Sorcerer
Apostle + Disciples
Havocs
CSM
Oblits (are considered to be worse than before getting new models!)

(Btw when they had their last update in 6th ou oft the 4 new units they got 1 was competitive - Heldrake)

Death Guard?
Competitive when Codex released:
Crawler, Bloat Drone, Blightspawn, Mortarion?, Poxwalkers, Typhus

Rest of the Codex not so much

Space Marines
When Primaris were released IIRC only helblasters were considered good, besides them old marines were the stronger choices

Necron Crypthek on Scarab OP?

Any Ork buggy?
I guess Warboss on Trike was good, so 1 out of 7 released models.

The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Exactly. With the invevitable trend of newer rules being generally better suited to the modern game, that explains the phenomenon of good stuff being good far better than anything deliberate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Is it true that the GW team in charge of the 2019 points changes and the team(s) that are writing the PA books aren't in close contact? That right there, putting them in closer contact, seems like an easy lay-up in terms of balance.

Brian888 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Is it true that the GW team in charge of the 2019 points changes and the team(s) that are writing the PA books aren't in close contact? That right there, putting them in closer contact, seems like an easy lay-up in terms of balance.

Probably?

The lead time for hardcovers is months in advance of softcovers, so PA books were probably done before CA even started getting worked on...it's hard to talk about things when your work is already done.

At some point, the community should consider listening to GW when they repeatedly tell us that balance isn't really their goal. GW seems deeply unconcerned about balance because they are, in fact, deeply unconcerned about balance.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

I agree with your overall point but I disagree with the 'strongest kits in the new marine books'. Assault Centurions are generally used over aggressors, the repulsor executioners are mostly dead after the IH nerf, and you didn't even mention the Leviathan Dreadnought or Thunderfire cannons, all kits that would have made your argument even stronger.

Someone here who have never bought a Chapter Approved before and is thinking about buying one this year. Mostly intrested in the new and previous Missions and game typs. Speaking of previous are The Eights datasheets in the one as well? As GW and reviers havent done a good job selling it CA to me so i thought id go one here and ask if its worth it?

Gaen wrote:
Someone here who have never bought a Chapter Approved before and is thinking about buying one this year. Mostly intrested in the new and previous Missions and game typs. Speaking of previous are The Eights datasheets in the one as well? As GW and reviers havent done a good job selling it CA to me so i thought id go one here and ask if its worth it?

Can't confirm anything about The Eight being in this year's, but Pimp-My-Landraider wasn't in 2018 so I doubt it will be. The missions were worth it though and creating some pretty even matches regardless of who got tabled.

 xttz wrote:
Not replying to this post because it might take too long to research your points would be a fair way to concede the argument.

However replying to say you've done this before then not posting that information is a much better way to concede the argument, thank you.

Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

And you're siding with Irbis? Really? Like do I really need to explain why the statement; "there's a game developer who loves Eldar so much he makes them OP so he can win games yo" is a stupid argument? Seriously? K man. You do you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

We're not talking about new models for existing units, we're talking about new models for new units.

People already have Banshees and old Jain Zar, so GW have much less incentive to make them strong than a unit that has never existed before. The same goes for all of the other new models of existing units.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

People already have Banshees and old Jain Zar, so GW have much less incentive to make them strong than a unit that has never existed before. The same goes for all of the other new models of existing units.

Wait, wouldn't replacement models have more of an incentive to get new, more powerful rules to induce sales? If I already have howling banshees, and banshees suck, I have zero reason to upgrade. If they become really good, perhaps due to a new model option, than I'm more likely to buy more.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

You assume way too much. I learnt long ago not to care what anyone on here thought of what I post.

If I cared as much as you seem to fantasize, I'd probably respond a little quicker than 7+ hours later?

Wait, wouldn't replacement models have more of an incentive to get new, more powerful rules to induce sales? If I already have howling banshees, and banshees suck, I have zero reason to upgrade. If they become really good, perhaps due to a new model option, than I'm more likely to buy more.

No. Obviously not as much as a hot, new model that is guaranteed to require new purchases. Banshees (and any other new model of existing units) have much less of a potential market than simply creating a new unit. We've seen this time and time again - not 'Warbuggy' but 'Boomdakka Snazzwagon tm'.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

You assume way too much. I learnt long ago not to care what anyone on here thought of what I post.

If I cared as much as you seem to fantasize, I'd probably respond a little quicker than 7+ hours later?

Well, if you don't care, could you perhaps follow the advice of Queen Elsa of Arendelle and *let it go*?
(Sorry, haven't seen Frozen 2 yet, there might be a more up-to-date quote I could have used there.)
Because as it happens, I also don't care.
And I can't imagine I'm the only one.

 Platuan4th wrote:


This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

I can live with that.

Some people just won't be convinced. Some I could show a picture of a blue sky and they'd still say it was red. I could point to the blue sky and they'd claim it was red.

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product. Then we have multiple, obvious examples of this in practice, recently and STILL people doubt it. There is no convincing these people. I'd rather not waste my time, again.

I just thought of one thing that may be an example of rules being effected by the drive for sales. That would be my beloved harlequins and how they've so smartly balanced nearly all of the units and wargear except for, inexplicably the harlequin kiss.

I think the rules writers are just not allowed to make the kiss a decent option, it just seems so odd they haven't touched it with a points update. And like I have complained the troupe kit comes with six of them, enough to kit out the whole squad. So I think they are trying to drive more sales of the kit by one, making people buy more kits to get the good weapon options, and also probably more importantly all of the old metal models equipped with kisses are basically useless. So people with old models have to buy the new kit and people looking to buy cheap older models will have to buy the new kit instead if they don't want gimped harlequin kisses.

Like I mentioned too in this thread, I did the math on kisses, and they only become somewhat efficient against mutli-wound t3 units, which there aren't many that I can think of. The other two weapon options outshine it too much virtually everywhere else.

There are many little cases like this, that probably make a lot of us think something fishy is at play by GW.

I'm no GW hater, I actually love this game. I even enjoyed playing 7th edition on nightmare mode with DE and harlequins (speaking of 7th edition, kisses were bad back then too.) However I do think GW occasionally purposefully does things like this to drive sales. They very purposefully and carefully do many other things like no model=no rules, or even more dreadful: no bit in the box=no wargear option. All in the name of protecting their bottom line, which I think is a questionable theory of theirs. That third party bits makers would somehow siphon their sales.