Switch Theme:

"Only what's in the kit" options - what does GW gain?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






This is something I've been curious about for a while now, ever since it got to actually modular units like Wyches and Skitarii: What does GW actually GET out of making units' options limited to what's in a single kit box (well, more or less....there are plenty of illegal ways to build a box of skitarii still if you're not careful with those pistols and melee weapons!)

The whole 'it's best to have everyone with the same gun, but we only give you one of each gun in the box' trick has been one of the most well-known and bemoaned GW sales tactics since time immemorial. GW doesn't do something if they don't at least have a PLAN for how it makes money - so what is it here?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

It's about making the game more accessible to new people.

GW is well aware that the market and world have changed, kids are far less into craft hobbies than they were many years ago. So GW has been removing some barriers to entry whilst at the same time also adjusting some other elements. EG Killteam is no longer just a few pages in the Big Rule Book, its a product with its own name and marketing and attention.


It's also like how GW has restructed and brought the points up to bring the number of models in armies down a bit iwth both their recent editions. Whilst this also pairs well with their new boards; its also about trying to allow bigger forces, but not so big that they end up a barrier to entry.

Another is that by limiting you to in-box contents it discourages you from looking for 3rd party options. That might start out hunting for a bits shop (which are rare now and any choice items are expensive/rare to get) and might end with a 3D printer; or 3rd party casting firm.
Sure a weapon isn't going to destroy GW; but if you start using more and more 3rd party now you're more at risk of spending your hobby money on stuff "not GW!"


GW wants to sell us lots of models, but at the same time they also realise that customers have limit points.
Of course you can argue that GW could just put all the options in the box en-mass - however that also runs with increased costs (you want 5 weapons 10X for a 10 man box that's going to be a bigger mould that means more cost for GW) .




So in some parts its them protecting themselves; in other its providing a clearer simpler product to the customer; in others its about giving customers "full optoins" without them feeling cheated or having to go outside of the GW ecosystem to find what they need.

A Blog in Miniature

The Swarm Arises

Do you ever notice, sometimes, there's an extra post? 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The generous interpretation is that it makes it easier for players, as a single box makes all of the potential options and you don't have to buy multiple boxes to max out your gear for just the one unit.

The more cynical guess is that it kills the market for 3rd party components. If the unit only has access to a single special weapon and that's included in the unit box, there's no reason for people to go to 3rd party sellers to buy extra weapons.

 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say





Philadelphia PA

Well it's pretty obvious IMO:

1. it's newbie friendly. It's a turn off to have to say to someone "yeah buy this kit, but if you want the real killer loadout you need two more of the same kit." Or these other kits, or whatever. Sometimes a new player is going to balk at a large buy-in so making each box essentially self-contained for game purposes (not bits for aesthetics, conversions etc) is going to make it more attractive.

2. 3rd party hostility. As soon as the chain cannon dropped folks were 3d printing alternatives. And 3rd party companies that make compatible or replacement resin bits have been around for a long time. By making each box self-contained in terms of unit loadout you cut down on people googling or talking about where they bought an alternative product.

It's overall another small step in insulating the game from the larger hobby. "GW is the hobby" is still the push, and everything they can do to quash gamers finding out there's other models out there is worth it for GW's bottom line.

EDIT: darn too slow

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 23:28:18


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 Overread wrote:
It's about making the game more accessible to new people.

It's not that at all.

It's about taking feedback they shouldn't have onboard for this edition.
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






I'm not sure what either the end result of this is or what GW necessarily gains from it.
The biggest issue is how fast and loose the rule is applied.
A unit of Tacticals or Devastators can pretty much take whatever weapon options they want despite them not being in the box, i.e. one flamer and a multimelta or four of any heavy weapon.
But then Wyches and Blightlords are restricted on loadout options.
Now if CSM and Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate, then a solid 60% of my Black Legion suddenly becomes illegal. Which kind of sucks because I put a lot of effort into converting and painting to give each unit loads of character.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






No idea. GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part..

If I had to guess some of the motivation:

1. People not going to 3rd party for bits instead of buying boxes maybe?
2. Discourage shoddy looking converting and magnetizing? - Some of my work falls into this category
3. Easier for rules writing and keeping things simple? HA!!! - Not saying this works but maybe that's what they are aiming for .. Coz.. Why then introduce 30+ different bolters.. and 4 layers of bespoke rules for one plastic person?



https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Whatever the reasons it makes for an horrible play experience so they should just remove all options associated with a physical model of a weapon if they do this and just make them different by rules.

Instead of an arkebus and a plasma rifle and a whatever give skitarii a anti tank option and anti elite option and make them take 2 per 5 of the same option and boom, fixed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 00:13:57


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Argive wrote:
3. Easier for rules writing and keeping things simple?
I dunno man, but this doesn't seem simpler to me:



 Kanluwen wrote:
It's about taking feedback they shouldn't have onboard for this edition.
You're again blaming the players. You're again absolving the people responsible for rule from actually being responsible for the rules. Tournament players didn't make GW do this. GW did this.

 Overread wrote:
It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
Nah, insaniak's right. This wasn't done for new players. This was done to stymie any sort of 3rd party market. Stop making excuses for them.


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/25 00:18:10


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
Nah, insaniak's right. This wasn't done for new players. This was done to stymie any sort of 3rd party market. Stop making excuses for them.

insaniak actually covered both options, as did Overread in the post you just cherry-picked that quote from.

While it's easy to attribute the worse option, there's no particular reason that both things couldn't have been considerations here. Ultimately, whatever their intention, not having to source extra weapons beyond what is in the box does make things easier for new players.

It's not as ideal as leaving those options in place and just making sure their kits include those options... but it is a solution.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 insaniak wrote:
insaniak actually covered both options...
Indeed you did, calling one cynical. I prefer the term "realistic".

Now you're right in that both options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - they certainly could have done it for both reasons - but given everything GW has been doing of late, the "for the players!" option just doesn't ring true to me.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Overread wrote:
It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
.


Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
The generous interpretation is that it makes it easier for players, as a single box makes all of the potential options and you don't have to buy multiple boxes to max out your gear for just the one unit.

The more cynical guess is that it kills the market for 3rd party components. If the unit only has access to a single special weapon and that's included in the unit box, there's no reason for people to go to 3rd party sellers to buy extra weapons.


I guess in theory? But in that case, why leave in the fact that certain weapons are sergeant-only, thus still allowing a total newbie to build his super expensive kit wrong (neato, I like the skitarii with the swords and pistols and maces and tasers, I'm gonna build all mine with those!) and also good lord why make it so ding-dang complicated to read?

it's like how when primaris dropped, instantly I was like "ah, newbie friendly space marines, I get what theyre going for!" and then the sm codex comes out and its like 1500 pages of unique bespoke slightly distinct weapon options.

And I guess it in theory kills 3rd party bits manufacturers...but...it also kills players buying multiple boxes to get all the stuff. The cynical option is "GW chooses to make less money".




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
I'm not sure what either the end result of this is or what GW necessarily gains from it.
The biggest issue is how fast and loose the rule is applied.
A unit of Tacticals or Devastators can pretty much take whatever weapon options they want despite them not being in the box, i.e. one flamer and a multimelta or four of any heavy weapon.
But then Wyches and Blightlords are restricted on loadout options.
Now if CSM and Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate, then a solid 60% of my Black Legion suddenly becomes illegal. Which kind of sucks because I put a lot of effort into converting and painting to give each unit loads of character.


Yeah, my DW vets still have a ton of options that....arent in the box at all...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/25 01:03:58


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

They probably think this will cut-down on 3rd party model makers "stealing" their customers. But its not really going to. The main reason people go to 3rd party sources is $$$. They want to save $ over GW prices.

So in reality they gain nothing.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
insaniak actually covered both options...
Indeed you did, calling one cynical. I prefer the term "realistic".

Now you're right in that both options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - they certainly could have done it for both reasons - but given everything GW has been doing of late, the "for the players!" option just doesn't ring true to me.
I think it is less "for the players" and more "let's but this complaint to bed once and for all".

I also think it is to remove any need for players to convert models while drawing a razor-thin line between converting and kit-bashing. In this case, a kit-bash is any intended interoperability between kits, like the Havok Chaincannon being designed to fit on one of the Chaos Space Marine models. A conversion is any use of a bit on a kit it wasn't designed to fit on. Thus, the First Born Marine unit keep a wide variety options as those kits were all designed to work together.

Does this make much sense outside of GW's brain? Not really, but it seems to cover most of the decisions.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




GW could have included all the options in the kits to reduce the amount of people buying 3rd party bits, and make the game more accessible for new players.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Blastaar wrote:
GW could have included all the options in the kits to reduce the amount of people buying 3rd party bits, and make the game more accessible for new players.


well with death guard they did put all the options in the kit

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





The way the new kits are designed make it such that its pretty challenging to swap around arms and weapons in the first place. Seems like an intentional design choice by GW.
   
Made in ca
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet






Canada

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The way the new kits are designed make it such that its pretty challenging to swap around arms and weapons in the first place. Seems like an intentional design choice by GW.

It's definitely intentional on their part. Didn't stop me from squeezing 3 Sister Superiors out of a Battle Sister box today though.

   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think management has no real plan and just changes ideas every second codex or so and the rule writers are stuck trying to make it work at this point.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 the_scotsman wrote:
What does GW actually GET out of making units' options limited to what's in a single kit box


Animosity.
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I think that the IP issue is concern 1, locking players into a game ecosystem driven by artificial scarcity of “unique” models that is inherently inhospitable to 3rd party businesses...
My reasons? Something like this...
The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 04:08:27


   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




We'll see how this turns out when CSM and Ork Codizes arrive. I think these two Codizes could really generate some noise if GW is too rigid with that approach. Chosen would disappear, Terminators would look ridiculous, CSM would mix CC and shooty guys, options for Nobz could look pretty clumsy... Orks were already treated badly over several editions though and lost options as Jidmah pointed out several times in another thread, so maybe there's not much left to lose for them, depending on the options in the new Boyz kit.
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Berlin, Germany

GW wants to keep as much control over "its models" as possible. As a customer, you are supposed to use those models as intended. Restricting options in kits is one way to achieve it. I consider both the goal and GWs approach to it to be stupid.

 jeff white wrote:
The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”

We are a good bit down that road already. One of the DG codex options is still not available at all anymore since the DI box has been discontinued. Others you can only get in extremely expensive sets - same for Indomitus contents. For AoS see also the models from "Cursed City".

So yeah, I am only partially looking forward to future releases...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 05:26:58


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 Darnok wrote:
GW wants to keep as much control over "its models" as possible. As a customer, you are supposed to use those models as intended. Restricting options in kits is one way to achieve it. I consider both the goal and GWs approach to it to be stupid.

 jeff white wrote:
The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”

We are a good bit down that road already. One of the DG codex options is still not available at all anymore since the DI box has been discontinued. Others you can only get in extremely expensive sets - same for Indomitus contents. For AoS see also the models from "Cursed City".

So yeah, I am only partially looking forward to future releases...


except GW's made most things from DI and Indomatus avaliableso that falls flat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 05:30:47


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it. I got back into the game just before the pandemic and was trying to figure out how to source plasma guns, since my box came with 1 and I needed 4. My options were shelling out for the correct bits (which would almost double the cost), get affordable bits and deal with conversion (extra expense and work), or mold and cast the guns myself (no expense but a ton of work). Ultimately I just put it off and played Tabletop Sim games instead. I didn't have an army assembled and painted until 9th when the plasma guns stopped being worthwhile.

Of course I buy the hostility to 3rd party argument as an additional benefit.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 DarkHound wrote:
Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it.
I can see that as well, but at the same time they don't have to be so pedantic about this.

To bring it back to the most egregious example of this nonsense, the Plague Marine weapon list, take a look at the 10th bullet point:

"For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Plague Marine's boltgun can be replaced with 1 mace of contagion and 1 bubotic axe."

The only way to get a Mace of Contagion is to also have a Bubotic Axe. You can't just take the Mace on its own. You can take the Axe on its own (point 9), but not the Mace. And all because that's the way that this model goes together in the instructions (either that or a bolter).

Nothing about this is necessary - they didn't need to do it this way - and when you've reached that many nested levels of if/then/else within the core unit to an army, I don't think the barrier to entry has been lowered, do you?


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/25 06:40:21


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it.
I can see that as well, but at the same time they don't have to be so pedantic about this.

To bring it back to the most egregious example of this nonsense, the Plague Marine weapon list, take a look at the 10th bullet point:

"For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Plague Marine's boltgun can be replaced with 1 mace of contagion and 1 bubotic axe."

The only way to get a Mace of Contagion is to also have a Bubotic Axe. You can't just take the Mace on its own. You can take the Axe on its own (point 9), but not the Mace. And all because that's the way that this model goes together in the instructions (either that or a bolter).

Nothing about this is necessary - they didn't need to do it this way - and when you've reached that many nested levels of if/then/else within the core unit to an army, I don't think the barrier to entry has been lowered, do you?




on that I agree. the plague marines entry is a complete MESS,

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

accessible =/= easy to play/use

this is a general problem that most people want "easy to use", or streamlined rules but use "easier to get into the game" as argument torwards GW

so to make the game more accessible, you buy a box and build excatly whats in there without needing to know what the best options are, or which loadout is best for each unit if you use 5 of them in an army list

same way as less core rules are seen as "more accessible" because you don't need to know much to play with that 1 unit out of the box

that in the end things are more complicated than before and unit entries harder to read does not matter because the goal was to make the entry easier not the overall game, and this was achieved

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




One box = one complete unit is a fair enough design decision and does make things easier for new players (or those who can't or won't do a bit of conversion). The usual GW lack of consistency is probably what is irritating about it though.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





As a Harlequin player its slightly annoying when the Troupe kit only has two fusion pistols, when the whole unit can be outfitted with them, which is 6 models in a kit. Also, although less relevent, Shadowseers and Death Jesters only get a single pose even though we can field multiples.

Given the incredibly small range of models it wouldn't hurt for them to make an upgrade sprue for Harlequins.

Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: