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.

BladeSwinga wrote:
This whole roundabout with double standards and fingers in ears going "lalalala I can't hear you I'm right you're wrong lalalalala!" Is hurting my head. This is a poor response and horrid arguing coming out of champagne_socialist. You're probably going to give me the same copy/paste waste of time, but the fact of the matter is is that you've decided it's alright to snowball multiple factions together under one heading (SM) and left the rest seperate (anything but SM). It really isn't a fair or accurate way of comparing them. If you don't wish to spend your friday arguing here, have an open mind and try to see things in another light. This childish stubbornness will go nowhere. Personally, I don't really care if SM (clustered togetheror not) are the best sellers, this logical fallacy is just bewildering.

you keep saying I am wrong when the stats say I am right. The external source posted in this thred showed SM out sell every other army by 6 to 1.

champagne_socialist wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:
This whole roundabout with double standards and fingers in ears going "lalalala I can't hear you I'm right you're wrong lalalalala!" Is hurting my head. This is a poor response and horrid arguing coming out of champagne_socialist. You're probably going to give me the same copy/paste waste of time, but the fact of the matter is is that you've decided it's alright to snowball multiple factions together under one heading (SM) and left the rest seperate (anything but SM). It really isn't a fair or accurate way of comparing them. If you don't wish to spend your friday arguing here, have an open mind and try to see things in another light. This childish stubbornness will go nowhere. Personally, I don't really care if SM (clustered togetheror not) are the best sellers, this logical fallacy is just bewildering.

you keep saying I am wrong when the stats say I am right. The external source posted in this thred showed SM out sell every other army by 6 to 1.

We are saying you're interpreting the numbers wrong. However, seeing as this will go nowhere, I wash my hands of this.

BladeSwinga wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:
This whole roundabout with double standards and fingers in ears going "lalalala I can't hear you I'm right you're wrong lalalalala!" Is hurting my head. This is a poor response and horrid arguing coming out of champagne_socialist. You're probably going to give me the same copy/paste waste of time, but the fact of the matter is is that you've decided it's alright to snowball multiple factions together under one heading (SM) and left the rest seperate (anything but SM). It really isn't a fair or accurate way of comparing them. If you don't wish to spend your friday arguing here, have an open mind and try to see things in another light. This childish stubbornness will go nowhere. Personally, I don't really care if SM (clustered togetheror not) are the best sellers, this logical fallacy is just bewildering.

you keep saying I am wrong when the stats say I am right. The external source posted in this thred showed SM out sell every other army by 6 to 1.

We are saying you're interpreting the numbers wrong. However, seeing as this will go nowhere, I wash my hands of this.

im not interpreting anything wrong.

 SRSFACE wrote:
Entrenched mentalities are dangerous things.

Anyway:

I think they need to increase the number of space marines players. Even if you count all the loyalists together around my area, they are still outnumbered by Xenos armies. I know 6 people who play Tau, 3 who play Eldar, 2 who play Chaos Daemons, 4 with Chaos Space marines, 2 with Necron, 3 with Nids. I know maybe like 9 people who have space marine armies and only TWO of them play Codex Astartes marines. Everyone else is a divergent chapter.

Tau are incredibly popular in our area. We have a lot of anime lovers in our playing circle, and they all seemed to gravitate toward Tau or Nids. It's pretty frustrating to battle a riptide or two without fail week and and week out.

That's a pretty good spread of players for armies. I would have to ask though if more people moved to xeno armies recently, like when 6th dropped or the new xenos codex were coming out, or if they had always been playing their xeno armies.

A more diverse change is something I certainly wouldn't want to mess with, as I still remember a few years ago when people would come onto the forums and complain about all the space marine armies being the only things played at their clubs with the Imperium sponsoring some big intergalactic paint ball games for the different chapters.

 phayze wrote:
I disagree with the sentiment that CSM fall into the category of the SM armies.

It'[s in the goddamned name.

They are Chaos Space Marines. Sure they're more whiny and less interesting than regular Space Marines, but they're still Space Marines in name, in lore, and in gameplay.

Be glad there even is any variety. The game began as almost 100% marines in RT and FW went the same way with HH and is making tons of revenue.

At this point, asking GW to take financial risks and marginalizing their one big seller because of some sense of entitlement is foolish. It's like WHFB or LotR players wanting GW to cancel 40K.

Marines are already some of the most disadvantaged factions on the tabletop. There's not much more to be done to boost xenos popularity besides the current Tau and Eldar buffs and bandwagoning we've been seeing.

 Melissia wrote:

 phayze wrote:
I disagree with the sentiment that CSM fall into the category of the SM armies.

It'[s in the goddamned name.

They are Chaos Space Marines. Sure they're more whiny and less interesting than regular Space Marines, but they're still Space Marines in name, in lore, and in gameplay.

Whiny...?

And your post isn't, somehow? (And every other one you have made on the subject to boot)

(btw ur just mad cuz we R betar so mad lal)

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Be glad there even is any variety. The game began as almost 100% marines in RT and FW went the same way with HH and is making tons of revenue.

At this point, asking GW to take financial risks and marginalizing their one big seller because of some sense of entitlement is foolish. It's like WHFB or LotR players wanting GW to cancel 40K.

Marines are already some of the most disadvantaged factions on the tabletop. There's not much more to be done to boost xenos popularity besides the current Tau and Eldar buffs and bandwagoning we've been seeing.

I think Orks could have been marketed a lot better. We have ha 3 LOTR films and 2 Hobbit films where Orks are a major race in the film, why not capitalise on that exposure and use it to make Orks more popular in 40k?

champagne_socialist wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Be glad there even is any variety. The game began as almost 100% marines in RT and FW went the same way with HH and is making tons of revenue.

At this point, asking GW to take financial risks and marginalizing their one big seller because of some sense of entitlement is foolish. It's like WHFB or LotR players wanting GW to cancel 40K.

Marines are already some of the most disadvantaged factions on the tabletop. There's not much more to be done to boost xenos popularity besides the current Tau and Eldar buffs and bandwagoning we've been seeing.

I think Orks could have been marketed a lot better. We have ha 3 LOTR films and 2 Hobbit films where Orks are a major race in the film, why not capitalise on that exposure and use it to make Orks more popular in 40k?

Orks are not everyones cup of tea.
Knights ( in space ) seem easier to sell than orks ( in space ).

But more Ork players would be a good thing. They tend to be not so as other xeno-players.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 phayze wrote:
I disagree with the sentiment that CSM fall into the category of the SM armies.

It'[s in the goddamned name.

They are Chaos Space Marines. Sure they're more whiny and less interesting than regular Space Marines, but they're still Space Marines in name, in lore, and in gameplay.

Whiny...?

And your post isn't, somehow?

On the contrary. This post is quite matter of fact.

Can you deny that Chaos Space Marines have the phrase Space Marines in their name?

I submit that, assuming literacy on your part, you cannot.

Your desperate desire to claim that you're not playing Space Marines does amuse me, however.

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 phayze wrote:
I disagree with the sentiment that CSM fall into the category of the SM armies.

It'[s in the goddamned name.

They are Chaos Space Marines. Sure they're more whiny and less interesting than regular Space Marines, but they're still Space Marines in name, in lore, and in gameplay.

Whiny...?

And your post isn't, somehow?

On the contrary. This post is quite matter of fact.

Can you deny that Chaos Space Marines have the phrase Space Marines in their name?

I submit that, assuming literacy on your part, you cannot.

Your desperate desire to claim that you're not Space Marines does amuse me, however.

Re-read my post.

I was not talking about that at all. You are adressing the wrong side of the whole thing. Ofc CSM are a type of (Not to mention a cooler version of) SM. But funny that you immediately jump to accusing me of 'desperate desires'. Assuming that others are like yourself, eh?

Myes, more like the hypocrisy of you whining on CSM for supposedly being whiny.

But you know what? I really CBA to go through the whole process again. So I'll just leave this here, @ your common proclamations of CSM's supposed 'inferiority'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygr5AHufBN4

Neeeext

Honestly I wish CSM would become Warriors of Chaos (xD) or CSM and add on Lost and the Damned (although logically I know they shouldn't because they still haven't updated orks and SoB are still really deserving of a full return).

I get it, GW loves their SM but I never quite got why they didn't really just tossed out the majority of chaos forces (then again I like to imagine mutants, beast men, traitor guardsman, and Hardy unorganized mobs with individuals sacrificing them self to bring forth great daemons to the battlefield). I mean, there are cultists and it doesn't really make sense why they have a WS and BS of 2 but a single unit does not represent the main fighting force of chaos (and IG are AoC and Desperate allies with CSM and CD respectively)

Orks definitely need more spotlight. It feels like whenever they are being featured in the fluff they aren't given the due amount of respect that races like Necrons or Tyranids get.

They should make BL novels with Ork protagonists.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
They should make BL novels with Ork protagonists.

Depending on how that was written, it could be very hard to read...

But, their antics would certainly leave an impression, if not their brutal way of waging war.

They have a WS and BS of 3 actually.

I think Legions of Chaos would be a more fitting name. Even more so if they consolidated the Daemons and CSM books into a glorious tome.
But GW won't do that, having to buy an extra codex so you can include Daemons or CSM in your force is just another cash cow for them.

To help new people get into the game and increase the chance of a new player sticking to the game they need to release starter boxes for every faction. A set with 2 troop units, an HQ, and a codex + brb combined with only the crunch and an introduction / summary of the faction. One major problem with GWs business model is that forces space marines down your throat when a lot of people find space marines to be uninteresting. The DV box is an incredibly poor set to attract new players because you have 2 armies who's iconic guys are super human in power armor or super human in power armor with spikey bitz.

Another good way to build the franchise is to allow more games like space marine and dawn of war (except no more ultrasmurfs or bloody magpies please). Computer gamers are a great pool of potential new blood expecially the growing amount of gamers who are getting older and may start to outgrow faster paced games.

Well, the best way to get people to play non-SM armies is a two-fold process.

One, the easiest, is to advertise non-SM armies in all the ways that they can.

Two, the super-fething-hard way, the so-hard-it-is-never-ever-going-to-happen is to balance the many Codices internally and externally so that the gap between the weakest army in the game and the strongest army in the game can be reasonably overcome by a reasonably competent player.

This, of course, is never going to happen.

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, the best way to get people to play non-SM armies is a two-fold process.

One, the easiest, is to advertise non-SM armies in all the ways that they can.

Two, the super-fething-hard way, the so-hard-it-is-never-ever-going-to-happen is to balance the many Codices internally and externally so that the gap between the weakest army in the game and the strongest army in the game can be reasonably overcome by a reasonably competent player.

This, of course, is never going to happen.

But...

Xeno armies are the top dogs, with armies like DA, BA and non-drakespam CSM being very close to bottom.

Are you suggesting that buffing SM would reduce their popularity?

No, I'm simply pointing out that the cyclical nature of who and what is the top-army drives sales of books and figures. It is only currently that SM are not a top-tier army, this has not always been the case.

If SM were the top-dog army from RT to 6th ed, those who play SM would only ever need to buy, basically, 1 army and the latest version of maybe 2 books.

Those people who want to win at everything the first time forever will only need to invest a relatively small amount of money into the game.

However, if the army in the top slot changes every edition (or more frequently as more books are released), then those who want to win at everything the first time forever will have to go out and buy new models, books, and figures every few years (or even every few months).

If armies were externally and internally balanced, than really the only choice an army is is an aesthetic one. If you prefer your Marines with or without spikes, or with or without boobs, or with or without pointy ears or big eyes and small mouths, or green skinned with tusks would be the main choice in choosing which army to field.

This, of course, is not something GW is ever going to do. There is much coin to be made in driving those who must win at everything the first time forever to buy new toys every month/year/whatever.

I think besides rules a lot of people like to play spacemarines because they can relate to them. Who wouldn't want to be a badass 10 ft guy? Want wings? Play BA. Like werewolves, metal arms or just about anything else? They have that too. Space marines just capture people's dreams, in the same way nids capture myn. I dream of eating cake Nom Nom Nom