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.

It recently dawned on me, we all know those models are just ridiculously over the top, being GW one of the usual worst offenders in coming up with this models im going to take say the Hellchicken as an example. I was thinking, being it as over the top as it is and being that everybody and their mother knows it and how unfriendly it is considered to bring multiples of this to a game, i was wondering how this affects sales, compared against something like bikes or other more friendly units (not necessarily troop choices).

Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

I've fiddled with the title a little bit to avoid confusion a'twixt "over powered" and "out of production".

I would assume it doesn't affect it much at all, because if you played the army you would pick it up more than likely anyway. If you don't, you'd just complain about it. I would be more interested in whether the aesthetics of an overpowered model would affect its sales.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I would assume it doesn't affect it much at all, because if you played the army you would pick it up more than likely anyway. If you don't, you'd just complain about it. I would be more interested in whether the aesthetics of an overpowered model would affect its sales.

I would pic 1, but i would not bring multiples of them, that would run me out of friendly matches rather fast. I would get it if they aimed at a competitive scene the way Wizzards does, but they clearly dont, which basically makes this much more expensive to master and produce models essentially 1 off HQs equivalents for most armies. I am sure there are asses out there that come to the table with 2 or three of them, but i doubt they are the norm.

I can only speak from my perspective as a new player to mini-war gaming. I got in to this hobby only months ago and my experienced friend helped me decide on an army and a play style. I was thinking of going foot-guard for fun and then saw the new riptides and broadsides. I knew nothing about them as units, abilities, point cost, anything, only as how they looked. I said to my friend, and this is true: "wow those look great, I'd love to do an army with, like, two riptides and a few broadsides and crisis suits and then take whatever else I have to like drones and fire warriors." He convinced me to stick with IG, telling me that I can make smaller armies easier and Tau can be tricky to play. I think the real reason was he didn't want me to deal with the hate from having an OP list. I still don't own any of those models and it will be a long time before I do. Unfortunately I guess I have bad luck in picking out the armies that tend to be annoying. Another instance, when asked if I would consider WHFB I replied that Dwarfs look cool...

TLDR: I love the look of the new broadsides and riptides but won't buy them for my first army just for avoidance of an OP list.

Tydil wrote:
I can only speak from my perspective as a new player to mini-war gaming. I got in to this hobby only months ago and my experienced friend helped me decide on an army and a play style. I was thinking of going foot-guard for fun and then saw the new riptides and broadsides. I knew nothing about them as units, abilities, point cost, anything, only as how they looked. I said to my friend, and this is true: "wow those look great, I'd love to do an army with, like, two riptides and a few broadsides and crisis suits and then take whatever else I have to like drones and fire warriors." He convinced me to stick with IG, telling me that I can make smaller armies easier and Tau can be tricky to play. I think the real reason was he didn't want me to deal with the hate from having an OP list. I still don't own any of those models and it will be a long time before I do. Unfortunately I guess I have bad luck in picking out the armies that tend to be annoying. Another instance, when asked if I would consider WHFB I replied that Dwarfs look cool...

TLDR: I love the look of the new broadsides and riptides but won't buy them for my first army just for avoidance of an OP list.

If you like the model, get it, its abusing them (as in multiples) what gets on peoples nerves, if 3 riptides carry 90% of your game broken as they are, yes they will get you some funny looks from people, 1 of them in your list i think its ok. But yeah, this is essentially what i was talking about.

The members of a club I go to had this debate recently.
We are doing a Tale of Gamers army building event and it was decided for balance issues to only allow one flyer per army in what will eventually be a 1500pt list.

I imagine something similar would be done with wraithknights, riptides and the like.

I'll quite happily use 1.
2 = Redundancy
3 + = Spam

I'll go as high as two in a list - 3+ of something is a pain when the edition changes and you get left with a load of models you don't want to use anymore...

I had aspect warriors as troops in 3rd ed. That hurt.

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Pyrovore, Dark Talon, Land Speeder Vengeance, Razor Shark, Wraith Blades... the list of units that got sucky rules along with new models is just as long.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Pyrovore, Dark Talon, Land Speeder Vengeance, Razor Shark, Wraith Blades... the list of units that got sucky rules along with new models is just as long.

Thank you - beat me to it.

The rules have nothing to do with the price. You are giving GW too much credit for the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. Prices are set independently of the rules written.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
I'll quite happily use 1.
2 = Redundancy
3 + = Spam

I'll go as high as two in a list - 3+ of something is a pain when the edition changes and you get left with a load of models you don't want to use anymore...

I had aspect warriors as troops in 3rd ed. That hurt.

Tell me about it. I had 50 warp spiders

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Dark Talon, Wraith Blades

Those units are actually rather competative.

Yes now they are but when the current models came out with the last codex they were a bit poo. Well at least the possesed and spawn in any case.

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Except all cards are sold at the same RRP set by wizards. They don't charge more for better cards, all boosters cost the same regardless of content. It's the second market that inflates prices. With GW, they design the models, control supply and set the prices. Not really the same thing.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Except all cards are sold at the same RRP set by wizards. They don't charge more for better cards, all boosters cost the same regardless of content. It's the second market that inflates prices. With GW, they design the models, control supply and set the prices. Not really the same thing.

Wizards does, however, control the rarity of a card, yes? Admittedly, I haven't played MTG in a dog's age now, but I remember that this was the case 'back in the day'.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

Except all cards are sold at the same RRP set by wizards. They don't charge more for better cards, all boosters cost the same regardless of content. It's the second market that inflates prices. With GW, they design the models, control supply and set the prices. Not really the same thing.

Wizards does, however, control the rarity of a card, yes? Admittedly, I haven't played MTG in a dog's age now, but I remember that this was the case 'back in the day'.

Yes, but rarity doesn't really affect how good a card is.
This is the Stormbreath Dragon, he's a mythic rare and goes for 25 to 35 dollars per card because he's used in a top tier deck


This is Tibalt, he's also a mythic rare and goes for 2 dollars a card because he's not used and is crap.


Both are the same 'rarity' but the secondhand market and current meta has determined that 1 is better than the other.

Alternatively, these card is an 'uncommon' and worth more than that mythic rare because they have more use, yet their rarity is lower.

If you look in the eldar book the best units are not units that got new models. In fact warpspiders, wave serpents, and bikes are some of the oldest models in the range, much less the game.

Tau, Riptides being the exception as everything else with the release is not considered a requirement for any competitive list.

Outside of Grav guns(and that is more an issue of the current meta) there was nothing in the space marine list that is new that is really good or mandatory for the competitive scene.

I honestly dont see where people are getting these assumptions that it is buy new to be competitive? A majority of the time that is just false.

 Leth wrote:
I honestly dont see where people are getting these assumptions that it is buy new to be competitive?

Probably because GW thinks that way when developing these new kits. Their reasoning is that, as a Space Marine player, you already have lots of tactical squads and other stuff, so how do they get more money from you?
-By making a new gun for you to buy for your tactical squads (which didn't make most people flock to buying Tactical Squads, instead they flock to the 3rd party companies making not-gravguns)
-By making big armored Centurions that an be assault units or heavy weapon units (but didn't end up being as cost-effective as assault terminators or lascannon predators, etc.)
-By making a cool new anti air tank (which sucks up a very competitive heavy support slot, when the Aegis Defense Line with a quad gun gives you far more bang for your buck)

GW likes to think that their new releases will be the awesome shiny stuff you just "gotta have" for your army, but that's not always the case.
Of course, there are the gems that slip through like Riptides and Heldrakes, but, as in all things, people remember the exceptions to the rule.

I think the assumption that the new models are required to win is a misconception. New models have an advantage in that no one will have played against them before, but time and experience weathers those rough edges quite a bit. It isn't that the new units are overpowered, it's that we haven't learned how to overcome them yet. Nowadays, Riptides don't give me any trouble at all. I've yet to see a Wraithknight on the field, but I expect it to kick my fanny the first time out. Once I get a few games against it under my belt, I should be able to handle them much more reliably.

There is no reason for us to HAVE to buy these units. It is completely possible to make competitive lists using units that have been around for years and years.

 g0atsticks wrote:
Thats why they do it though, all new models are over the top. Riptide, Hellduck, Tervigon, Wraithknight, I'm sure the list goes on.

Pay to win, just like MTG.

My bud played against an army with two Wraithknights and destroyed it using a pretty standard Ork army. I believe it's on a Blue Table youtube vid.

Community dislike probably has very little effect on model sales. Remember, not everyone plays in a community where the local TFGs declare that you're not allowed to play if you take a list that is "too good". Some people just play by the normal rules of the game, and in that context buying 3x Riptides (or more, don't forget Farsight) is a great idea.

This is why I've mostly moved to Infinity. No new releases are actually more powerful than previous releases, they simply open up new tactical options. If I built a list using only units from the Core rulebook, I'd have no problems against someone using units from the later books. If someone brings a TAG, I don't think 'well crap I left all of the missile launchers out of my list', as there's other ways to deal with them.

With 40k, if I want to make a Tyranid list based around Hormagaunts as the main troop type and Carnifexes as the main Heavy Support, I better pray my opponent is just as casual in his list making. If I want to stay 'competitive', I better make sure I find out what units got seriously buffed in the latest codex, which usually wind up being newer kits, and spam those.

Hm, the power gamer will buy them, the fan boy will buy them, miniature fans will buy them to convert them, haters will hate and buy them anyway.

I buy something Japanese and use that

I have to say community dislike probably has zero impact on sales. War gamers like to do 2 things, complain on the internet and win. Its basically a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario, piss and moan on a forum about how over powered units are but they probably have some of those units (if not spam) to keep their army "competitive".

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
I have to say community dislike probably has zero impact on sales. War gamers like to do 2 things, complain on the internet and win. Its basically a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario, piss and moan on a forum about how over powered units are but they probably have some of those units (if not spam) to keep their army "competitive".

I agree with this so much, I am going to exalt it and make tshirts of it.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
I have to say community dislike probably has zero impact on sales. War gamers like to do 2 things, complain on the internet and win. Its basically a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario, piss and moan on a forum about how over powered units are but they probably have some of those units (if not spam) to keep their army "competitive".

Exalt the above as well. If something is 'overpowered' you can bet that if nothing else, a lot of people are buying them. It's not like having a contingent of people out there going, 'shhhaaaaaaaaaame!' and shaking their fingers will drive down sales.

The community's dislike doesn't factor into ANYTHING that GW does, sales or otherwise. Otherwise there wouldn't be a stupidly overpowered model every time an army got an update.

Anything in the game can be killed, just because people whine about having to fight multiple Riptides doesn't mean they're overpowered, it's that people don't bother to actually find a way to beat them. It's easier to whine and bitch on a forum or to their friends about how 'unfair' a unit is. Planning a way to beat that army is just too damn hard for some people.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Anything in the game can be killed, just because people whine about having to fight multiple Riptides doesn't mean they're overpowered, it's that people don't bother to actually find a way to beat them.

Units in 40k aren't overpowered because they're not killable - everything is killable. Units in 40k are overpowered because for their abilities, they're drastically undercosted which allows them to be easily spammed - hence pay to win.

Finding out how to kill them isn't the issue, the issue is you shouldn't have to tailor your list on the off chance of facing a particular unit.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Anything in the game can be killed, just because people whine about having to fight multiple Riptides doesn't mean they're overpowered, it's that people don't bother to actually find a way to beat them.

Units in 40k aren't overpowered because they're not killable - everything is killable. Units in 40k are overpowered because for their abilities, they're drastically undercosted which allows them to be easily spammed - hence pay to win.

Finding out how to kill them isn't the issue, the issue is you shouldn't have to tailor your list on the off chance of facing a particular unit.

Pay to win, still don't get how that's a valid argument. That's like bitching about every upgrade ever made to anything. "Oh, instead of using my hand to wipe, I have to buy this new butt-paper? Pfft. Pay-to-wipe, so unfair to us traditionalists."

Do I think that GW writes rules poorly? Yerp. Do I think that any army in the current 40k can beat any other army? Yerp.

On-Topic: Again, I think the community thinks it has some sort of impact, but it doesn't. Various tourney results certainly claim otherwise.

P.S. I do agree that it sucks people feel as though they have to tailor their lists in order to win.