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.

First, lets not turn this into a GW-bashing thread, aight? Thats really not my intent.

What I've been thinking about for quite some time is this: GW re-does a Codex (or an army book, but lets stick to 40k for simplicity). Now, from older codexs, there are already countless players with armys built; models built, painted and have strong back history assoiciated with them in the players eyes.

Then GW changes, or even removes, these units from the new rules.

My question is this: Where does GW get their data from, thats says 'X' number of players out of 'XX' number of players who play this army don't use this unit, or at least don't have significant models to warrant us NOT changing this unit around, or dropping it completely?

In 12+ years of playing, I've never seen a GW poll to find this out, or anything like that. ANybody have any idea how they go about making these decisions? I'm pretty gosh-darn curious.

What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

It could be based on how many different people order X model from them and multiples of said model, aka the sales matter.

Another factor could be certain people working at the studio think X model isn't cool enough to keep around or their personal bias vs certain armies.

Quite frankly, I doubt they even consider how many people already have any given unit when they are deciding what to change in a codex.

Or, rather, the fact that a lot of players have a unit is not likely to be the most important criteria for keeping it. Given that a codex is in essence nothing more than a marketing vehicle for selling models, it should be exactly the opposite, in fact... The whole point of releasing a new codex is to get people to buy new models.

Amaya wrote:What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

Gained non-existent models yes.

Also, just curious, was Kruellagh's title 'the Vile?' (cheap shot)

Zakiriel wrote:It could be based on how many different people order X model from them and multiples of said model, aka the sales matter.

Another factor could be certain people working at the studio think X model isn't cool enough to keep around or their personal bias vs certain armies.

E.g Squarts

(I know, I know, resets timer)

You can't blame them for it since they are A limited company and no longer a hobby company for hobbiests they need to make money. If they didn't do what thay do they would not have got the global dominace that thay have at the moment. But I do think personal bias, the need to simplify and in some cases a lack of imagination cause the loss of units/armies (though since 2nd ed two new armies and a few more races have appeared and many more units). I think the Orks are one of the armies that lost the most, this was probably more for streamlining.

Portaljacker wrote:Also, just curious, was Kruellagh's title 'the Vile?' (cheap shot)

Yes, it was.

Amaya wrote:What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

Space Wolves lost Leman Russ Exterminators and Tyranids lost the Red Terror, although neither is a *huge* loss.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Amaya wrote:What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

Space Wolves lost Leman Russ Exterminators and Tyranids lost the Red Terror, although neither is a *huge* loss.

They didn't lose 'model' though. IG still has that and Leman Russes really have no place in a SM dex. Tyranids can still field the Red Terror ASFAIK as a Ravener.

insaniak wrote:

Portaljacker wrote:Also, just curious, was Kruellagh's title 'the Vile?' (cheap shot)

Yes, it was.

Wow, so me being stupid wasn't so stupid. But that's just a terribad pun, worse than I usually do!

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Amaya wrote:What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

Space Wolves lost Leman Russ Exterminators and Tyranids lost the Red Terror, although neither is a *huge* loss.

I wanted to make a Russ so bad since I read about it then was sad when I found out I had to make it a counts-as pred and modify it to have the right wargear.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Amaya wrote:What models are you referring to in particular?

Blood Angels didn't lose any units. Grey Knights didn't lose any units. Both actually gained models.
ASFAIK Space Wolves gained models/units as well.

Dark Eldar lost Kruellagh, but that's mainly because her fluff was terribad.

Space Wolves lost Leman Russ Exterminators and Tyranids lost the Red Terror, although neither is a *huge* loss.

Key example. They introduce a model, (and argualbly a decent addition) in a codex. Then who knows how many people go buy the $60 model, paint it, etc; Then ion the next edition, they drop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side note: It could be a big loos to some players. I realize that its just your opinon based on your own experiences, but other players may have had the skill to make these units work for them. You never know for sure....

Cortez667 wrote:
Key example. They introduce a model, (and argualbly a decent addition) in a codex. Then who knows how many people go buy the $60 model, paint it, etc; Then ion the next edition, they drop it.

Yes, but in this case the Wolf codex came out in like 1999 and their new book didn't come out until 2009.

Meaning...?

I don't think GW care much how many copies of unit X have been sold.

They know that 75% of their customers churn within two or three years. That 75% only cares about the models available during their short period in the HHHobby.

Actually, this may be true...however, again, how could they possiably track this statistic? That'd be impossiable.

how could they possiably track this statistic

You can't with much accuracy but you could look at delivery addresses for mail orders (or actually track billing addresses nowadays) and extrapolate from there to give part of the picture. You'd have to take into account that mail orderers will likely contain a higher proportion of dedicated enthusiasts, but again, comparing volume sold via mail to volume sold via shops would give you a rough platform. You can also compare directly, for example, the mailed 4th edition rules to the mailed 5th edition to see how many go to the same person/address.

I grant you there will be considerable margin for error in extrapolating from partial data, but they don't need more than a rough idea. If the typical gamer stays with warhammer for 5 years or less then your business model is going to be very different from if they're tying in for a longer span. In truth though I think they just need to look at the bulk of their market, which is schoolkids. The fact is most schollkids will drop the hobby when or shortly after they leave home or go to university/leave university. If they're coming in at 13, a 10 year lifespan would be the typical maximum (of course you get a core who carry on well into adulthood, but that proportion is always going to be low, and boards like this one will attract a far, far higher percentage of them than exist in the overall population.

As regards the codex changes, I think they always try to add new things but keep the essential core similar (so people's basic models are unlikely to have to be altered much). But they can't just keep adding stuff so they drop characters, elite choices etc if what's new will sell better, or indeed if they just fancy a bit of a change (because the writers will want to add their own mark to every new codex and the designers will be pushing hard for their latest ideas to be included, because that's human nature).

I think a good example of this would be in the new (ish) 5th ed. SM codex. You need 10 tactical marines to get access to any special or heavy weapons.

While I 99% know that they did this for game balance, it makes people who had smaller tactical squads have to flesh them out in order for them to be leagal. WHile this is a weak example, it still is valid. And while this might have been done to encourgae more sales of tactical marines (arguably GW highest selling boxed set) the margin of sales increase doesn't seem like enough to warrant changing the squad compisition rules for that purpose alone.

Brother SRM wrote:

Cortez667 wrote:
Key example. They introduce a model, (and argualbly a decent addition) in a codex. Then who knows how many people go buy the $60 model, paint it, etc; Then ion the next edition, they drop it.

Yes, but in this case the Wolf codex came out in like 1999 and their new book didn't come out until 2009.

A very good point.

Dark Scipio wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

Cortez667 wrote:
Key example. They introduce a model, (and argualbly a decent addition) in a codex. Then who knows how many people go buy the $60 model, paint it, etc; Then ion the next edition, they drop it.

Yes, but in this case the Wolf codex came out in like 1999 and their new book didn't come out until 2009.

A very good point.

Good point how, exactly? I'm not being a dick, but I honestly don't see what hes getting at...time lapse between codexs don't mean that much, ihmo.

If GW wanted to invalidate the old codex to force people to buy new models, they probably wouldn't have waited 10 years and two editions.

I think that GW wants to get people to buy new stuff with each codex, they're just not great about doing it. Sometimes a new model kits is the hotness, and everygbody wants three (Valkyrie, everything DE, wolves, Baal), but too many of the new plastics are "meh" for this theory to have too much juice. Nids got, of all things, Ravenors as a plastic kit. IG got new sentinels (which kinda suck), BA got gorgeous Sang guard and Death Company boxes which sell to collectors and as bitz packs, but aren't the strongest units. The best units the Wolf book are either generic (missles, razorbacks, typhoons, marines with bolters) or non-plastic (thunderwolves).

But in general, GW shakes up each army with a new codex. I owne about 7k of IG before the new book, and I still bought tons of new stuff.

GW Codex design doesn't start with the rules. It stats with the models. Choices for new models can (and do) dictate what ends up in the rules.

Each Codex is designed in a vacuum, and some units within each Codex are designed within a separate vacuum. That's how we get things like Possessed and Mandrakes and whatnot that make us scratch our heads.

This all makes the game 'better'*.


*May not actually be 'better'. Results may vary. Side effects may include: Frustration, bemusement, anger, apathy and Matt Ward. If pain persists, see Phil Kelly.

If pain persists, see Phil Kelly.

Who will prescribe a nice ride on a wolf puppy?

It could be worse. Your army could be Cruddfaced which means since it's not IG you get subpar rules, or they could get Warded then you get mary sue rules while your army has tea time with BA and Necrons.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think GW care much how many copies of unit X have been sold.

They know that 75% of their customers churn within two or three years. That 75% only cares about the models available during their short period in the HHHobby.

That makes a lot of sense. The Chaos Daemon codex is 2-3 years old, and the new Grey Knight codex makes it completely unplayable. I guess the window of caring about daemons has passed.

I have figured out that GW definitly makes at least some of their plastic models well in advance.

that Plastic Deamon prince that came out last year? its in the WoC army book in all its glory. that means the Plastic deamon prince was sitting on the shelf for several(3-5) years before release.



GW seems to pick their release schedule with a mix of picking the oldest/most populer codex.

Codex SM gets updated every new edition.


they also seem to be doing a Xeno/Imperial swap every other release.

unpopular codexs get left in the dust, ala DAs, BTs, and DE. these guys wait for a FAQ to make them decent again.

the DE rerelease revitilized them massivly and they will move up to middle tier.

The picture in an army book or codex can sometimes show a mock up, or a resin cast, or soemthjing other than a fully buiilt and painted plastic kit.

Also, it's not only unpopular armies that get left behind. Orks and Wolves have been marquee armies for 15 years, and incredibly popular, and both languished for quite a while.

This won't be popular but; the plural of codex is codices.

well, the WoC book showed the 2 different body styles avaliable.

these EXACT models, same paint scheme, same pose, are in the WoC book.

I can't download at work, but I'm not saying you're wrong. I thought somebody once explained that they can get models in the codex before they're actually street ready.