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.
2020/04/05 19:41:58
Subject: Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
2020/04/05 20:10:17
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
And, unfortunately in the case of xenos, GW seems more likely to remove rules for a unit than bring out a model for it.
VAIROSEAN LIVES!
2020/04/05 20:13:16
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Sunny Side Up wrote:Ynnari had the big narrative advantage of making Eldar (not just Craftworlds) active participants in the actual 40K fluff.
The problem with Eldar was that their background was just so atrocious and irrelevant, largely stuck on "stuff that happened ages ago and now we're all sitting around in Craftworlds/Comorroagh/Webway and mope about the old days".
They were basically the origin-story-opening-scene-disposable for Slaanesh that somehow stuck around for the actual game, because it was a weak copy of the generic fantasy-elves clichee-lore of "the old, past-its-prime-race".
Ynnari actually give Eldar relevant background for engaging in the 40K setting and thus ironed out the by far weakest slice of the early-days 40K lore.
Ynarri are what actually made me start a pointy-eared army.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:In the end, Angels don't need to be their own codex, Death Guard and Thousand Sons don't need to be their own codex, and the Inquisition + forces that have fought for them before (Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch) could've been one codex.
Sunny Side Up wrote:All those Xenos don't need their own book either. Just put Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc.. into an Enemies of the Imperium book and done.
dont give Slayer any more ideas
2020/04/05 20:55:46
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2020/04/05 21:27:32
Subject: Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Marines are by far the worst offenders when it comes to minor subfactions getting their own books. They would be the first to go. UM, BA, DA, SW, DW, SA, GK, WS, RG, IH, custodes, You think they'd go for that? There'd be fething riots.
3 eldar books? That's too many, fellas. A dozen marine books? Sounds about right.
2020/04/05 21:54:22
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 21:55:29
2020/04/05 22:05:53
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/04/05 22:09:21
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
It's not. GW cannot steer demand.
Hell, they tried for over two decades, having a perfectly matched release for WHFB and 40K. One month WHFB, one month 40K. One army book WHFB, one codex 40K, etc.., etc.. Exactly the same shelf-space in all GW stores.
If that would shift consumer preferences by even a tiny fraction of a percentage of a percentage, WHFB would've never died.
LoTR was for several years getting more product than 40K and WHFB combined. Why would GW want to change that? If it were a perpetuating cycle, LoTR would still be GW's biggest game by a giant margin.
Bigger companies have tried. New Coke. Apple TV. DeLoran Motor Company.
Trust me, if there was a snowball's chance in hell companies could influence what their customers buy with some predictability through the product they release, they'd be over that in a heartbeat. All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/05 22:13:13
2020/04/05 22:30:59
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Your rationale makes sense in terms of satisfying the existing base only.
Adding new factions captures the new audience. I came back because of genestealers and sisters. Period. There have been posts in this thread about people who started collecting Eldar because of the Ynarri- they pulled me into CWE. New factions do make money. It's why this edition has the highest sales in GW history. How much did they make on Aleya and Valerian?
Half or more of the 70% of people who play space marines also play armies that aren't space marines, and some of those people actually like small factions because there isn't as much to collect.
There is such an abundance of material for marine players that you've reached the point of diminishing returns. Investing in new factions grows the base. Releasing for existing ranges merely maintains it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 22:31:38
2020/04/05 22:41:42
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
This is a terrible idea and should be ignored.
Seriously. I'm sure I am not alone in not wanting 'monster books' to become a thing. If I had my way, every book from now on goes like the Marines do when possible: Single book with all the generic stuff, supplement books with specific subfactions. I don't ever want to pay for Ultramarines trash in my Raven Guard books again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 23:00:16
2020/04/05 22:43:16
Subject: Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
GW have control over what people buy. Typically it goes:
1. Models that look good - and work in game.
2. Models that look bad - but work in game.
3. Models that look good - but are a bit rubbish.
4. Models that look bad - and are a bit rubbish.
Pretty sure every FLGS says this can be seen for essentially every gaming system.
WHFB died because the game itself had bad rules, balance was a creeping joke, and new players were told "oh you want to start playing Empire? Right you need 40 Halberdiers. Are they good? Not really, but they provide a good blob to put your characters in and then buff up with lots of magic. You need to buy those too, also knights, cannons and basically a full 2k points list."
"What do you need to start 40k? At a minimum idk, 2 boxes of troops and a clampack HQ? Oh you and all your friends prefer to go for that? What a surprise."
2020/04/05 23:24:38
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
40K has too many factions as it is. These minor off-shoot factions only exist to drag money out of people via codices, and a handful of additional models. It shouldn't be a stretch that anyone going into a niche of a niche army should be aware of this. These factions should have remained as part of a larger codex.
^^^^^^This.
We already have factions-within-factions within single books. A lot of 40k can, and should be, consolidated. At this point half the game is basically the smallest, most similar, least differentiated fighting forces in the galaxy separated mostly by a few wargear/special rule swaps.
Treat Harlequins and Deathwatch (and many others) the way Stormtroopers get treated in the IG book. They have their own keywords, a couple unique units, but otherwise are part of the larger faction. They can still be built as their own army, have all their toys, etc, but don't need a distinct separate army book.
This is a terrible idea and should be ignored.
Seriously. I'm sure I am not alone in wanting 'monster books' to become a thing. If I had my way, every book from now on goes like the Marines do when possible:
Single book with all the generic stuff, supplement books with specific subfactions. I don't ever want to pay for Ultramarines trash in my Raven Guard books again.
Except the IG codex isn't much of a "monster" book and yet manages to do the most diverse human fighting force in the setting, competitively and thematically capable of multiple distinct faction lists . You can do your elite airborne commando lists, you can do infantry hordes, you can do tank companies with scoring battle tanks, etc ad nauseum and all with a gazillion special rules for different flavors. You can represent a far wider array of forces, with substantially more divergent backgrounds, using the IG codex than the torrent of SM books provides for a handful of botique subgroups, and does so without getting bogged down with powercreeping rules or absurdly granular focus. I'm not trying to hold the IG codex up as a paragon of game design, because it's not, but in this respect it's hard to see where a downside for people running any sort of IG army to have to share everything in one book and not need a separate one for tank companies and stormtroopers.
The complaint of having to pay for having "pay for X in my Y book" is...pretty absurd Both based on the fact that such content isn't going to change the cost measureably (they're mostly pretty picture books anyway), and having it there isn't hurting anything and makes it easier for you to reference if facing such an opponent (and if you do end up wanting it you do have to pay for and store and carry around another book that's mostly filler anyway).
Besides, with the crowd that's on a forum like Dakka, lets not lie to ourselves, we're not only buying just our codex anyway, we're buying 'em all or a large fraction of them (or pirating, in which case, none of this matters)
40k is the only game I can think of where people treat the idea of getting access to more stuff in the same book is a bad thing, or who somehow think that having stuff from multiple niche subfactions share the same printed material is somehow literally offensive
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2020/04/05 23:26:16
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
The only cases you're going to find are likely to be:
* Remnant references to discontinued (Legendary or whatever it's called) models.
* Units written for Forge World campaign books
Because Chaos Knights would pretty much be the exception that demonstrates the rule that everyone else has to live within.
2020/04/05 23:47:09
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, it looks like you're a chaos player, so would you suggest putting Thousand Sons and Death Guard back into CSM?
Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? There are zero benefits to a faction having its own codex as opposed to being a section in someone elses.
I don't even play marines, but this game would be stupid boring if there was only one flavour.
In what way is rolling the rules of a sub-faction into that of its parent-faction making everything "only one flavor"?
And yeah I am a Chaos player. You know what else I play? Blood Angels. And my first army? Black Templars, with their 4th edition codex.
Honestly the DG and TS are prime exemples off subfactions that could've been handled with an A4 page which describes their limits, abilities and changes aswell as access to units.
Infact it would've been better then the hodgepodge we got now, and i know alot of DG players that have lovingly converted units that they now are not allowed to field anymore even though they are fluffy for DG (Havocs? Anyone? The infantry legion doesn't believe in fire support squads anymore?)
The 3.5 codex covered all the legions better than the current three, in less pages than the current csm codex.
Gw's current codex design philosophy is based on one thing: $$$
To be more precise, the new design philosophy is based on one thing: This is a game played with Games Workshop models built out of Games Workshop parts.
I remember back in the 3rd edition era when there wasn't even an official model for the Defiler, and at best suggested collections of bits to use to build one. I think GW may have even had a contest concerning choosing those collections.
Huge sections of the 3.5 Chaos codex were like that, where the players were left on their own to figure out how to represent upgrades on the models. Between then and now, whether it's the result of "No model, no rules", "Making options equally accessible to new players and old players", or whatever, the authors of the Chaos books no longer get to say "The players can figure out how to model that. And the players can wade through several levels of redirection to figure out what the unit's options are."
The old codex format that books used during 3.5 was more space efficient compared to the modern codex layout, for units with a lot of options. But there's a reason why support software like Army Builder became wide spread back then.
Between 'A fixed limit on where a unit's options may be specified' and 'All options for a unit have to exist in manufacturing', that pretty much rules out the old 3.5 style codex, or even the original Realm of Chaos stuff.
At this point, the "Should Death Guard and Thousand Sons be in the CSM codex?" is a publishing issue: How many times do you want to buy the CSM codex?
Because you're looking at two choices:
1. GW publishes the CSM codex, the Death Guard codex, and the Thousand Sons codex.
2. GW publishes the CSM codex, CSM codex 2.1 adding Death Guard, and then CSM codex 2.2 adding Thousand Sons.
because the pragmatic corollary to "No model, no rules" is "New rules need to be published as new models come out" and putting model rules in codex shaped bundles works a lot better than the alternatives.
That would make more sense if gw's "no model no rules" policy wasn't so haphazard. There are plenty of units that they still expect players to convert. See any chaos knight that isn't a rampager or desecrator, or chosen. I'm sure xenos players could give us examples as well.
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
The only cases you're going to find are likely to be:
* Remnant references to discontinued (Legendary or whatever it's called) models.
* Units written for Forge World campaign books
Because Chaos Knights would pretty much be the exception that demonstrates the rule that everyone else has to live within.
Grand Master Nemesis Dreadnknight? Catachan grenade launchers?
2020/04/05 23:53:36
Subject: Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Chosen, sorcerer with jump pack, chaos lord with jump pack armed with anything besides lightning claws, chaos lord on foot armed with anything besides a thunderhammer, aspiring champions with combi weapons, really if we go with weapon options not included in kits we could go all day. That's why the bits market exists.
2020/04/06 01:45:33
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot decide who or what gets a book or doesn't get a book by the stuff the lore-writers write in there. They are literally the bottom of the food chain.
If 7 out of 10 people play/buy Space Marines, 7 out of 10 Codexes ought to be Space Marines.
Squeezing 70% of your customers on one book while lavishing a vastly greater amount of books, shelf-space, writers-time, art-work development, etc.. on the other 30% doesn't make sense.
If lore wise this offends you, just re-jig your private 40k universe that everything with a book has equal military numbers in the 40K-universe, wether its Orks, Grey Knights, Astra Militarum or Iron Hands. Problem solved.
Just one issue.
It's a self perpetuing cycle that way.
It's not. GW cannot steer demand.
Hell, they tried for over two decades, having a perfectly matched release for WHFB and 40K. One month WHFB, one month 40K. One army book WHFB, one codex 40K, etc.., etc.. Exactly the same shelf-space in all GW stores.
If that would shift consumer preferences by even a tiny fraction of a percentage of a percentage, WHFB would've never died.
LoTR was for several years getting more product than 40K and WHFB combined. Why would GW want to change that? If it were a perpetuating cycle, LoTR would still be GW's biggest game by a giant margin.
Bigger companies have tried. New Coke. Apple TV. DeLoran Motor Company.
Trust me, if there was a snowball's chance in hell companies could influence what their customers buy with some predictability through the product they release, they'd be over that in a heartbeat. All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
No, i am not talking about fad manipulation i am talking about sister of battle style deinvestment cycles.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/04/06 07:59:13
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/06 07:59:34
2020/04/06 08:03:34
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
VAIROSEAN LIVES!
2020/04/06 08:12:27
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/06 08:17:24
2020/04/06 08:12:40
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2020/04/06 09:35:24
Subject: Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
2020/04/06 10:57:04
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
You have no evidence of anything, see below;
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
So their marketing pushed failed does not mean it's impossible to drive demand.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
Source this was their intent? That it was supposed to be the "entry product"? Source as to their resources spent on this? As above though.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
No, they wouldn't. For proof of this please see the huge numbers of new SoB players since their kits have been updated. Coincidence or are people actually driven by model support as much as anything else?
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
You have no proof that marines are intrinsically more appealling. You are making assumptions that I disagree with, particularly based on the evidence I have provided with regards SoB. What you can state, with relative confidence, is that a faction that is continually supported, with new models, that are provided less expensively than others, sell well.
In other words - GW absolutely drive demand with their actions. Perhaps they make more profit on Space Marine kits relative to others or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
There is no crying here, dudeface. Stop strawmanning. Simply a statement of suggestions that may help explain the seemingly incomprehensible popularity of marines outside of 'they're just cooler bro!'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/06 11:03:36
2020/04/06 11:20:43
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
found the entries to remove for the next DE codex
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/04/06 11:41:03
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
I'll challenge you to provide other examples of a "GW expects you to convert the model" situation that isn't a Chaos Knight.
At the risk of belabouring the point, also requiring conversion are Archon with Blast Pistol (or Agoniser), Haemonculus with Hexrifle, and Succubus with Blast Pistol.
can't you just be glad they took all those other troublesome conversion requiring deldar HQ options away
found the entries to remove for the next DE codex
It's funny cos it's true
VAIROSEAN LIVES!
2020/04/06 11:48:18
Subject: Re:Is WD the death of the DW and a killer for the clowns?
All they can do is react to what they know (or guess) customers will buy.
You can't actually believe these statements?
GWare steering demand when they primarily create new models for Marines while leaving other factions to languish. That's without question one of (if not) the biggest driver for Marine demand.
Which is most appealing to a new player? This army with models that are largely 3 years old max in plastic that look great or this other army with ugly models that are 20+ years old, in a mix of plastic or failcast that makes up the core troops?
GW are actively pushing new (and existing) players to Marines. They have always done so. Marine models have one of the best monetary cost to points ratio, they are in every boxed set bar one and they are designed to be easy to paint. If that wasn't enough, they are also always the focus of the fluff.
The 'story' of 40k (if you can call it that) is literally normal marines vs spikey marines. GW have said as much.
If you think GW aren't actively manipulating demand for Marines you either haven't been in the hobby very long or you have a very weird understanding of what manipulating demand is.
You literally clipped out the evidence from my previous post that shows you're wrong on that.
You have no evidence of anything, see below;
Again, they pushed WHFB exactly equal to 40K for nearly 3 decades as far as factory, marketing and other resources go. It never changed the fact that 40K just outsold WHFB many times over.
So their marketing pushed failed does not mean it's impossible to drive demand.
For half a decade, they pushed LoTR as the "entry-product" into the Hobby with a reach far beyond the GW stores and the hobby ecosphere, with more resources devoted to that than all their other games together. If that would move the needle on what people pick up independent of prior preferences, LoTR would still be GW's no. 1 and the no. 1 starter game.
Source this was their intent? That it was supposed to be the "entry product"? Source as to their resources spent on this? As above though.
If they had for 30 years pushed Marines and .. say ... Necrons equally, they'd still be selling at the same relative ratio as they do now.
No, they wouldn't. For proof of this please see the huge numbers of new SoB players since their kits have been updated. Coincidence or are people actually driven by model support as much as anything else?
They don't put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes so people buy Marines. They put Marines over Necrons in starter boxes, because they'll sell many times more starter boxes (including and especially to people completely new to the hobby and with absolutely no preconceptions of the background, etc.. ), simply because the Marines are intrinsically the more appealing.
You have no proof that marines are intrinsically more appealling. You are making assumptions that I disagree with, particularly based on the evidence I have provided with regards SoB. What you can state, with relative confidence, is that a faction that is continually supported, with new models, that are provided less expensively than others, sell well.
In other words - GW absolutely drive demand with their actions. Perhaps they make more profit on Space Marine kits relative to others or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm glad yet another topic has descended into crying about marine book numbers and releases, maybe that is the trend that more explains why harlequins feel neglected. Because people cannot stop talking about marines.
There is no crying here, dudeface. Stop strawmanning. Simply a statement of suggestions that may help explain the seemingly incomprehensible popularity of marines outside of 'they're just cooler bro!'
Possibly, but I fail to see why that has any direct correlation to whether harlequins are in white dwarf means the range is going the way of the dodo.
. You can do your elite airborne commando lists, you can do infantry hordes, you can do tank companies with scoring battle tanks, etc ad nauseum and all with a gazillion special rules for different flavors. You can represent a far wider array of forces, with substantially more divergent backgrounds, using the 
Both based on the fact that such content isn't going to change the cost measureably (they're mostly pretty picture books anyway), and having it there isn't hurting anything and makes it easier for you to reference if facing such an opponent (and if you do end up wanting it you do have to pay for and store and carry around another book that's mostly filler anyway).
