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.

cody.d. wrote:
A large number of people agreeing on something does not make it accurate. Religion is a solid example.

Battlescribe has been wrong from time to time and also takes some time to be updated by it's content creators.

Well if being wrong from time to time is all it takes then GWs no better. I seem to recall a recent CA that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Or was that one of the precious FAQs you mindlessly all seem to worship? The one where they copy pasted out of date #s & allowed for 25 strong bike squads....

ccs wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
A large number of people agreeing on something does not make it accurate. Religion is a solid example.

Battlescribe has been wrong from time to time and also takes some time to be updated by it's content creators.

Well if being wrong from time to time is all it takes then GWs no better. I seem to recall a recent CA that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Or was that one of the precious FAQs you mindlessly all seem to worship? The one where they copy pasted out of date #s & allowed for 25 strong bike squads....

Arguably it's worse if GW makes errors, be they frequent or rare since it's something we as customers are paying for. You'd hope there was some polish. (Though I suspect most of the development money goes into the models with the rules and lore being something of an afterthought.)

For someone who is playing competitively none of the CAs were that useful except for the tiny portion with points updates. Otherwise it's mostly resources for narrative play right? Kind of like newspapers, often you buy it for maybe 2 pages with the rest being of little interest. XP

I doubt anyone worship's the FAQs, but they do frequently tweak or change how things function. And for that group who are trying to play the game in tourneys and the like those rules changes are what they are, for better or worse.

But yeah, GW could indeed put more effort into the book/rule writing sort of things. But I have doubts if that will happen soon.

 Togusa wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.

-

The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.

Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.

have you seem how many different primaris LIEUTENANTS GW have made, just by themselves? There are at least 12 separate, new, plastic models for a single unit entry in the marine codex. Although some have actual names, I don't think those names translate to unique character profiles (they all use the same generic lieutenant entry(s)),

For comparison, non named character models in the 3 eldar armies combined equals 11: 3 DE, 7 CWE, 1 Harlie based on GW's webstore (and the fact that the warlock skyrunner and the farseer are the same box).


that's one HQ unit from the space marine book, which has a ridiculous number of HQ entries, having more examples to purchase than the HQ offerings of 3 entire armies.


So I don't really think it's a problem of design space at all....

Typically once people start crying about the primaris lts, I stop listening. Most of those were LE models for store releases or models for the specific chapters (blood angels, Ultras, etc). You can't even buy over half of them anymore. As I stated before, we've seen new NON primaris characters teased for the fall, including orks, dark eldar, death guard and so on. It's reasonable to assume that once Necrons and the New marine stuff are out, you'll see a shift to one of those other factions with more rules, books, models and kits. Crying about it doesn't do any good. Email the company if you're so upset and tell them you want more support for non-marine armies.

I have emailed them before. I've never seen that have any impact.

As for the limited nature of those Lieutenants, I think that works against your argument, but in favour of it.

A limited item is a luxury within a luxury product line. They take the same amount of time and money to design and produce, but are released without the expectation that they will be turning profit in an ongoing fashion. That's an amazing extravagance.

I'd love to see multiple unique Ork boss models as variants, or a range of Eldar heores that are all exarchs in unique poses and with cool weapon loads.

keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective

BrianDavion wrote:
keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective

As GW produces HIPS in house they have the possibility to use other materials for the molds
specially Aluminium instead of Steel, which does not only save money for the material but also cost/time for cutting it

the only downside is, it only lasts for ~10.000 runs until you scrap it which is the perfect way to make small limited edition plastic kits.
it is cheap to produce, no storage space for the mold needed, and you can sell it for more because "limited edition"

GW is only doing it because it is cost effective, and producing a limited edition Primaris model gives them more profit than doing a normal Xenos model


GW produces only stuff that sells, which is a Vicious Circle as old models/designs or an army without a in-consistent design because of that, does not sell well, hence they don't get new stuff and because there are no shiny new lines (not only single models) they don't sell

 kodos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective

As GW produces HIPS in house they have the possibility to use other materials for the molds
specially Aluminium instead of Steel, which does not only save money for the material but also cost/time for cutting it

the only downside is, it only lasts for ~10.000 runs until you scrap it which is the perfect way to make small limited edition plastic kits.
it is cheap to produce, no storage space for the mold needed, and you can sell it for more because "limited edition"

GW is only doing it because it is cost effective, and producing a limited edition Primaris model gives them more profit than doing a normal Xenos model


GW produces only stuff that sells, which is a Vicious Circle as old models/designs or an army without a in-consistent design because of that, does not sell well, hence they don't get new stuff and because there are no shiny new lines (not only single models) they don't sell

This isn't always the case, I read on here somewhere that there was supposed to be a 2nd wave of harlequins to round the range out, but poor sales meant that got scrapped. That was off the back of a fully redesigned army with new kits.

Dudeface wrote:
This isn't always the case, I read on here somewhere that there was supposed to be a 2nd wave of harlequins to round the range out, but poor sales meant that got scrapped. That was off the back of a fully redesigned army with new kits.

Sounds specious.

makes sense tho, it's called an desinvestment cycle. The same thing happened to Sister of battle.

It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

BrianDavion wrote:
keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective

My understanding is the savings comes in the mold, by using a cheaper metal that is only good for a limited run. Still expensive, but proportionally less so than the full higrade steel mould.

I remember chasing my first limited model - sergeant centurius 25 years ago. Never got one, but I saw the appeal.
The model should be profitable if you know how many you are making, divided by the profit on each.

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.

But look at the monopose detail.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.

But look at the monopose detail.

GW cant write good rules, but their models are fantastic. There is no reason to believe the new models will not be good.

Marin wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.

But look at the monopose detail.

GW cant write good rules, but their models are fantastic. There is no reason to believe the new models will not be good.

Looking good =/= functionally good.
Tell me, how'd you like Chaos terminator style equipment loadout, and don't point to the 100s of spike options in there.

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.

The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.

 Jidmah wrote:

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.

The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.

This is preciscly the point i am attempting to make.
Better GW replaces the finecrap left over then replacing the boyz.
Especially because the boyz still can keep up with their looks to modern models.

Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.

I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.

I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.

ehhhhhhh that is debatable.....

but if you add the caveat: if you give them the oppurtunity to actually implement something to milk you, then it is absolutely true.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Marin wrote:
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.

New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.

The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.

This is preciscly the point i am attempting to make.
Better GW replaces the finecrap left over then replacing the boyz.
Especially because the boyz still can keep up with their looks to modern models.

There was alot of orc whining about those models and that they needed update.
GW give people what they wanted.

The vast majority whining about these models weren't even playing orks as their main army or at all.

They were just a vocal minority that made too much noise.

Marin wrote:
GW give people what they wanted.

Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.

I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.

yeah personally I'm of the opinion that Ork Boyz have aged reasonably well. various human models have aged poorly because they're compared to other human mini's, but Orks and Tyranids can get away with slightly older models because it's less obvious

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.

I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.

yeah personally I'm of the opinion that Ork Boyz have aged reasonably well. various human models have aged poorly because they're compared to other human mini's, but Orks and Tyranids can get away with slightly older models because it's less obvious

Not only that - the ork boyz are identical to the orks found in the burna/loota, warbikers, battlewagon and trukk boxes. Not similar or roughly the same, they are the exact same models, sharing bits for legs, torsos, heads and arms. These are pretty much all the non-nob orks that are made out of plastic that aren't just an upper body sticking out of a plane or naut. One of the best "hacks" for saving money when buying orks is getting a box of boyz to build both burnas and lootas from one box, as they use the same bodies.
The only exceptions are storm boyz and the new buggies and even those look very similar.

So if someone claims that boyz need a replacement but warbikers, lootas and burnas do not, they don't know gak about about orks and should just be quiet. They are literally identical models with different wargear.

 Dysartes wrote:

Marin wrote:
GW give people what they wanted.

Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?

Debatable options: Genestealer Cults, Indomitus going made-to-order, the forthcoming Old World game, the return of Necromunda.

To be honest I'm split on this point, because I know that a lot of these are profit-driven, and there are still a lot of requests that have so far gone unheeded in the name of Primaris profit. I guess we'll see what happens with Xenos armies in the next year or so.
But things are definitely better than the Rountree days.

Why on earth are people acting surprised by this when it was entirely expected from the moment the Ork codexes released without an entry for the Warboss on Bike?

You've known this day was coming for almost 2 years now...

Because
1) they actively put work into it by moving the warboss on warbike to the forgeworld section for the last CAs, including the one in 9th
2) FW is still selling the model
3) the warboss on warbike was not moved to legends like all the other bike characters

 Dysartes wrote:

Marin wrote:
GW give people what they wanted.

Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?

Well they did fix the GK rules after 2 years. Although it was just rules, no new models were added.

Well, I'm not against new boyz IF they are just updated models in aesthetics, like new sisters or necron warriors and anything that looks better than old models but doesn't squat them at the same time.

I'd hate significantly bigger boyz or boyz with new weapons that force players to re-buy their horde.

New line of models is cool when it doesn't invalidate the old one; orks need some new kits (plastic warboss, big mek with KFF, koptas, all new plastic models for characters/units that are in finecast, some new characters as well, etc), not to get primarized.

 Dysartes wrote:

Marin wrote:
GW give people what they wanted.

Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?

Controversial claim: the new space marine book. There has been a year of incessant whining about how poorly written and OP the marine book is, so a new one to try and re-balance them is actually what people wanted (but not what they asked for).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Stux wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.

There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.

Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.

How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.

It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.

I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.

I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?

Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.

Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.

So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....

Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Stux wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.

There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.

Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.

How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.

It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.

I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.

I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?

Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.

Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.

So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....

Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.

For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.