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.

Corrode wrote:Using the Forge World releases as an indicator of too much attention being paid to Marines is pretty iffy. 2008 and 2009 both saw huge amounts of Ork stuff being released; the SM releases in 2010 were variations on a theme (marks of power armour, which have turned out to be very popular for a variety of reasons) and some retro bitz packs to go with them. The end of 2010 and the opening bits of 2011 have seen a bunch of Eldar releases in the lead up to IA11; the period from the release of the Hornet is roughly evenly split between Marines (with the Achilles, Tyberos and the FW Ironclad), Guard (Malcador, Cadian HE) and Eldar (Wasp, Hornet, Shadow Spectres). What FW releases is entirely dependent on what book they're putting out; it's been Guard vs. X for years, then Orks v. Marines, now Eldar vs. Guard/Marines with the focus seemingly on the Guard.

Perfectly understandable. I like it how they follow the fluff and try not to make it seem like the space Marines are the only ones fighting the important battles.

Goliath wrote:YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!

First off, way to assume bad faith.

I posted what my methodology was, so it's not like I played cute with the numbers to fit my predetermined hypothesis. I've started re-working my base data to be more precise, to specifically list every single kit (not release, kit) released for 40k in 2010. I didn't see any Tau releases in the newsletter, but in retrospect, I also didn't see the FW Ironclad or the Land Raider Achilles either: perhaps my email search is imperfect. Perhaps I was sloppy. I am, however, attempting to honestly build this to get a good idea. If you'd like to help me, here's my data list: The red line indicates the point where I got busy with work and had to stop. Everything above the line is fleshed out with the precise number of kits, everything below is just a single release. Then we can rebuild the chart and see utterly precisely the lay of the land. I'll edit this list if anyone else wants to work on it, and then we'll know every kit released for 40k in 2010 which incidentally is also sort of a nice list to have anyway.

Jan 2010 - Space Marines: Legion of the Damned wave (9 kits)
Jan 2010 - Tyranids - Ravener, Trygon, Gargoyle, Pyrovore, Venomthrope, Hive Guard(6 kits)
Jan 2010 - FW IG - Tauros Venator, Tauros, Valkryie Sky Talon (3 kits)
Feb 2010 - Space Marines: Venerable Dreadnought (1 kit)
Feb 2010 - Ork Killa Kans & Dreads (2 kits)
Mar 2010 - IG Chimaera, Basilisk(2 kits)
Apr 2010 - Space Marines: Blood Angels - sanguinary guard, death company, baal predator, sanguinor, lemartes (5 kits)
May 2010 - FW - Space Marines: Shadow Captain Korvydae, Raven Guard Upgrade (2 kits)
May 2010 - FW - Ork Warkopta (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - FW - Ork Grot Tanks (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - Eldar Fire Prism (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - IG Manticore\Deathstrike (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - Ork Mekka Dread (1 kit)
Jun 2010 - FW Space Marine: Special Weapons Pack (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marines - Raven Guard Transfers (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Ork Kommando Upgrades (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: Caestus Assault Ram (1 kit)
Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: MK III Iron Armour Set (1 kit)

Jul 2010 - FW Space Marine: Umbra Bolter pack , Special Weapons Pack 2 (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - Chaos Daemons - Daemon Prince, Pink Horrors, Seekers of Slaneesh, Changeling, Kairos Fateweaker, bloodcrushers (6 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space marine: Mk IV Maximus Armour Set, Umbra Ferrox Pattern Bolter Pack, Umbra Phobos Pattern Bolter Pack, Mk2 Crusade Armour Set, MkV Heresy Armour Set, MkIV Corvus Armour Set (6 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space Marine: Raven Guard brass etch, Flesh Tearers brass etch (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - FW Space Marine: Iron hands transfers, Imperial Fists transfers (2 kits)
Aug 2010 - Traitors of Chaos (re-release) (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Lugft Huron, Sevrin Loth (Raven Guard librarian) (2 kits)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Blood Ravens transfers, Crimson Fists transfers, Blood Angels transfers (3 kits)
Sep 2010 - FW IG Elysian Transfers (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Ork Etched Brass (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Space Marine: Space Marine Character Upgrade Pack (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Necron Tomb Stalker (1 kit)
Sep 2010 - FW Ork Grot Mega Tank (1 kit)
Oct 2010 - Dark Eldar - Incubi, Archon, Lelith Hesperax, Kabalite Warriors, Raider, Reavers, Wyches (8 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Land Raider Achilles, FW Ironclad Dreadnought (2 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Eldar Hornet (1 kit)
Nov 2010 - Dark Eldar - Ravager, Hellions, Uriel Rakarth, Mandrakes (4 kits)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Raptors transfers (1 kit)
Nov 2010 - FW Space Marine: Iron hands brass etch, Imperial & Crimson Fists Etched Brass (2 kits)
Dec 2010 - FW IG Malcador Infernus

all up to date 8:37am cst

You're missing some of the IA8 releases for guard, namely the Tauros Venator, Standard Tauros and Valkyrie Sky Talon. All released in Jan 2010.

Snarky wrote:You're missing some of the IA8 releases for guard, namely the Tauros Venator, Standard Tauros and Valkyrie Sky Talon. All released in Jan 2010.

Alright, I'm not sloppy: my search is not finding the newsletter releases for the Tauros or the FW Ironclad. Updating.

I appreciate Ouze's work on the graph. It is very informative, even if it is slightly inaccurate.

SM have been in every boxed set since 2nd edition. The current set comes with the same armies as the 2nd ed box. GW stores are full of SM, Blood Angles, Space Wolves, etc. Until recently, Dark Eldar were not even stocked in their stores. The only upside to the super abundace of SM is that I get to kill more of them.

I, like many other GW fans, would like to see more xenos stuff. If GW would adopt Privateer Press' release schedule then we would not only get new models for every army on a regular basis, but would also get loads of new rule books.

I think even SM players are tired of the SM releases. In the very least they could release something new. Rather than Grey Knights, they could make an Adeptus Mechanicus codex. That would sell really well.

A long time ago, I had two Eldar codices - Eldar, and Craftworld Eldar. The second one was a simple supplement to the first, detailing the fluff, listing the heroes, and including the new FoC.

As much as I like marines, I like simplicity more. I'd much rather see this arrangement (Codex Marines and one Variant Chapters book). They had a Chapter Traits table in one of the SM codex books - so it'd be a fairly straightforward task to list the changes to the FoC and the individual chapters' specific traits.

I'd love to see less of the "Big Four" (BA, SW, DA, Ultra) and see more of the White Scars, Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, and other builds. By putting them all on the same footing and seeing them all side by side, you might get a more balanced arrangement.

spaceelf wrote:I appreciate Ouze's work on the graph. It is very informative, even if it is slightly inaccurate.

I, like many other GW fans, would like to see more xenos stuff. If GW would adopt Privateer Press' release schedule then we would not only get new models for every army on a regular basis, but would also get loads of new rule books.

I think even SM players are tired of the SM releases.

Well Ouze's graph only missed the mark by a percentage but the main point is still very correct.

PP release shedule would mean after each new editions released they would make new revised books for each faction under a year

I hope SM players still love it because GW has been putting most of its eggs on one basket.

Hence a big part of the reason I lost interest in GW...and I like SMs.

Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

This was the first time they've done a full "Marine v. Marine" setup, two books even.
Most years if Forge World releases any Marine items, it's in the same numbers as the Tau/Ork stuff.

Well, to be fair, this is the natural culmination of a chain of events laid down way back in Rogue Trader. There, you had the "good guys" of the Imperium, and they only came in two flavors: Hammer and Anvil. You could play the shining white knights of the Marines or the scruffy underdogs of the IG. There was no middle ground - the Titan Legions, Imperial Navy, and air support didn't come into things until much, much later.

You see the same kind of dichotomy in fantasy gaming as well (not so much WHFB, but elsewhere) with humans being extremely popular, and human knights/paladins being overwhelmingly so. As cliche as it can be, there's something about the paragon of human badassery facing off against of see of gibbering evil that resonates with the average joe, and I think GW is knowingly tapping into that.

On the human side, you still have a pretty limited pallette, unfortunately. You still have the traditional Hammer and Anvil roles, but now you also have Marines Lite (SoB) and Magic Marines (GK). The Witchhunters codex ALMOST gave the Imperium a viable third flavor, but in the end most players - myself included - just looked at it as a book to build a Sisters army with the possible inclusion of an assassin.

I think what needs to happen is a differentiation of roles. What I like most about WHFB is that every army has a variety of different ways it can be built, because of vagaries in unit size and force composition. I think that it is much harder to min/max your average fantasy army than it is in 40K - there's just not enough variation from role to role to make a difference. And the marines, bless `em, are just the pinnacle of homogenization. They were set up as the standard by which all else in the 40K universe was measured since Day One, and they've remained that way.

When they first released Epic 40K, it was originally titled Space Marine. So it's not like the writing wasn't on the wall early on.

Kanluwen wrote:Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

Really? Using FW releases to also count as GWS releases wasn't so odd when players wondered about a plastic dread, and you pointed out that chaos players could save their pennies and get the FW one instead. Or did you mean using 2010? That was the last full year of releases. Should I cherry pick out some year that had less releases to better massage the data?

Strelka wrote:Well, to be fair, this is the natural culmination of a chain of events laid down way back in Rogue Trader. There, you had the "good guys" of the Imperium, and they only came in two flavors: Hammer and Anvil. You could play the shining white knights of the Marines or the scruffy underdogs of the IG. There was no middle ground - the Titan Legions, Imperial Navy, and air support didn't come into things until much, much later.

You see the same kind of dichotomy in fantasy gaming as well (not so much WHFB, but elsewhere) with humans being extremely popular, and human knights/paladins being overwhelmingly so. As cliche as it can be, there's something about the paragon of human badassery facing off against of see of gibbering evil that resonates with the average joe, and I think GW is knowingly tapping into that.

On the human side, you still have a pretty limited pallette, unfortunately. You still have the traditional Hammer and Anvil roles, but now you also have Marines Lite (SoB) and Magic Marines (GK). The Witchhunters codex ALMOST gave the Imperium a viable third flavor, but in the end most players - myself included - just looked at it as a book to build a Sisters army with the possible inclusion of an assassin.

I think what needs to happen is a differentiation of roles. What I like most about WHFB is that every army has a variety of different ways it can be built, because of vagaries in unit size and force composition. I think that it is much harder to min/max your average fantasy army than it is in 40K - there's just not enough variation from role to role to make a difference. And the marines, bless `em, are just the pinnacle of homogenization. They were set up as the standard by which all else in the 40K universe was measured since Day One, and they've remained that way.

When they first released Epic 40K, it was originally titled Space Marine. So it's not like the writing wasn't on the wall early on.

Space Marines were very different in Rogue Trader:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/348361.page


The things which I found heroic and compelling about them then seem to be gone now. They're presented as boring invincible heroes now more or less.

True. I'm not sure when they scrubbed the marines clean and rebranded them, but you're right about them not being paladins. But I think the point about them being the Hammer to the IG's anvil, and being positioned as THE elite and the primary crux of the human side of the game still stands.

EDIT: I should never miss the opportunity to bash this abomination... the Ultramarines movie pretty much proves that the Marines have jumped the shark. They're as lifeless and wooden in concept now as the Terrance Stamp's performance and the animation in the movie.

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Using Forge World for 2010 presents a huge oddity.

Really? Using FW releases to also count as GWS releases wasn't so odd when players wondered about a plastic dread, and you pointed out that chaos players could save their pennies and get the FW one instead. Or did you mean using 2010? That was the last full year of releases. Should I cherry pick out some year that had less releases to better massage the data?

If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

Kanluwen wrote:If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

I am. I've only been playing since the end of 2008, and didn't even know Forge World existed until mid-2009, so I only had complete newsletter data for 2010.

Kanluwen wrote:And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

I wasn't clear on what your point was. I thought your thrust was that I shouldn't be counting FW kits as being equivalent to GWS releases, and it seemed appropriate to mention you also did. It looks like what you meant was 2010 was statistically odd, though.

Ouze wrote:

Goliath wrote:YAY!! Manipulation of statistics to cause maximum effect time!!

First off, way to assume bad faith.

actually the reason I assumed bad faith was the title of the thread, and the fact that you were inconsistent with your data gathering which led to a result that seemed skewed in your favour.

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If your intention is to show some kind of "average" release data, then 2010's Forge World Space Marine releases would be an outlier. They have, prior to this, not had a year this full of Marine items. At most, the closest to this was when IA4 was released and we saw the Red Scorpions kits. But even--it wasn't anywhere near this full.

But you should know that, since you're claiming you did this in good faith.

I am. I've only been playing since the end of 2008, and didn't even know Forge World existed until mid-2009, so I only had complete newsletter data for 2010.

Kanluwen wrote:And so what if I pointed out that Chaos players could save their money and get the FW one instead of converting the plastic Marine one?

I wasn't clear on what your point was. I thought your thrust was that I shouldn't be counting FW kits as being equivalent to GWS releases, and it seemed appropriate to mention you also did. It looks like what you meant was 2010 was statistically odd, though.

For Forge World?

It was statistically odd to have so many Marine releases from them.

I think he was pointing out that the more data you have, the more accurate it would be. For example, if you took the American viewing figures for TV on the day of the superbowl, you would discover there were a lot of people watching American "football".

However, if you took viewing figures for the rest of the week, or month, year, decade, etc, you would discover that what was a significant trend now becomes relatively insignificant.

It would be interesting to see GW/FW releases year on year, as well as an overview "total" tally to see if the proportions remain relatively stable overall.

Goliath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

Actually its one specific race and per say one army... even the models are the same.

No and yes... WFB warrior of chaos, daemons and beastmen have completely diferent models and yes I believe they all should be packed inside 1 nice fat book.

here is a second, more accurate chart which specifies what exactly was in each release. Unsuprisingly, the numbers are more or less the same.

You need to cut Daemon/Witchhunters out since they were(unsurprisingly) culled from the line-up years ago.

SilverMK2 wrote:I think he was pointing out that the more data you have, the more accurate it would be. For example, if you took the American viewing figures for TV on the day of the superbowl, you would discover there were a lot of people watching American "football".

However, if you took viewing figures for the rest of the week, or month, year, decade, etc, you would discover that what was a significant trend now becomes relatively insignificant.

True as the superbowl brings in alot of people who only watch the superbowl.

Goliath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:38% is far too much for one army.

except it isn't one army, it's 5 different armies that come under the banner term "space marines"

It's comparable to complaining that in WHFB, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos and Beastmen all got codexes, because they're all chaos armies right?

I know nothing about WFB so I'm going on a limb here, but Beastmen/Warriors/Demons of Chaos all have very different base units right? At least much more distinctive than "This is a Green Marine, he likes to write moody poetry and look for fallen. This is a Red Marine, he sometimes goes mad and paints his armor black. This is a Blue Marine, he's a smug git. This is a Grey Marine, he's a yiffer". It would be fine to combine them into a single faction-book, but to lump them as a single army when they are clearly different is disingenuous.

I think that statistical analysis is pretty pointless. That being said, the Marine armies (although customized) are fundamentally similar and GW focusing so much effort on churning out another minimally distinctive Marine Army (last month was the Blood Angels, before it was the Wolves, next is the Grey Knights) is unfortunate and does everyone who plays the game (Marine players included) a disservice.

The point of "Fantasy in Space" is that there are a lot of factions to play, if 40k is going to become an endless rehash of the Marine-on-Marine Badab war then who will want to play it (other than Marines, and even they'll get bored of it after a while)? 40k isn't an original universe, but it is distinctive in that there's so much going on. The xeno species should be able to have narrative arcs that don't involve the Imperium (or at least don't involve the Astares), otherwise xenos aren't participants in the 40k universe, they're just bit players from central casting brought on to be beaten by the Big Hero. Utterly without agency. That makes them no different from the Zerg, they aren't characters they're foils. Who wants to play that?

Here's the problem with this issue: it either assumes that consumers are absolute idiots, or that GW is completely stupid.

Most companies release products they think will sell. Given the amount of SM stuff I see on table tops, i think GW has a pretty good handle on demand for SM stuff.

You could argue that people buy what's promoted, but if that's true, than it doesn't matter much what GW makes.

That said, I don't think using FW releases is necessarily the best for gauging GW's level of commitment to SM. It's pretty well documented that FW produces a lot of things that seem neat, and they figure a market will follow. In addition, plenty of things are released by FW as a test balloon.

Hmmm... perhaps a FW/GW only pie is required as well as the combined pie

Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

I'm curious as to how much autonomy Forge World has. If they are able to make their own decisions as to what to sculpt and sell, it might not be fair to include the FW releases in with the GW stuff. On the other hand, if there's a direct relationship there* and GW dictates what gets made, then it should be considered as one sample pool.

*I say this because I have no idea what the official relationship is between FW and GW, apart from FW makes the big expensive ones and the demons with eyeball nipples.

Polonius wrote:That said, I don't think using FW releases is necessarily the best for gauging GW's level of commitment to SM. It's pretty well documented that FW produces a lot of things that seem neat, and they figure a market will follow. In addition, plenty of things are released by FW as a test balloon.

I'd agree with this. I'd be more interested in non-FW releases, as the 'true' 40k representation. FW simply isn't the mainstream hobby; I never see it at the store, never play against it in local tournaments, and wouldn't know half of the models' stats if they did show up.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

If other races are treated as 2nd class, less people are inclined to start them and more drop out. If they release proportional Marine releases due to this, they make a positive feedback loop of customers being put of other factions and losing more an more customers.

Also, as this has happened GW sales have not experience growth.

While Marine focus may not be the cause, it has not helped growth so at best this sort of focus has done nothing.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Seeing as how Games Workshop sell more Space Marine related products than everything else they sell combined, it's kind of understandable that they support them so much. Perhaps it's surprising that they don't get more support. There is simply a greater demand for Space Marine products and they are always popular.

GW wouldn't support them if they weren't naturally popular anyway. Lots of people also like to collect things that aren't the 'popular' choice so there are a proportionately higher number of non-Space Marine products. After all, Games Workshop has always made more than Space Marines, even if some people would barely know it.

Then why even bother? Just rename the game "Badab War" and be done with it.

Look at any other model range, there are a dozen "Guys with Big Guns in Power Armor" lines out there, what made 40k cool is that it *wasn't* just "Guys with Big Guns in Power Armor" beating on each-other (as it was in other games), they were beating on Elves/Orks/Demons, all of whom were playable factions with full depth of their own. Without the xenos 40k is literally every other SciFi wargame, just with a 40% price hike.

Such a cool universe, and they're throwing it away to be just like everyone else.