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.

If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Ouch, I have not felt agreement to a statement like that so strongly in a while.
It is only an "impression" but rings as a hard truth to me.

Wayniac wrote:
Here's one solid reason they are NOT getting better:

Apparently, Fall of Cadia is 136 pages and will cost ~$50 USD. Normal GW price right? But AOS is coming out with Battletome: Disciples of Tzeentch. It's also 136 pages and is supposed to cost like around $25USD (probably closer to $30), but for the same number of pages it's going to be less money, because reasons.

WTF?

40K doesn't need to be sold, people buy no matter what. Age of Sigmar on the other hand needs to be sold, so hence why it's cheaper. I am sure, if Age of Sigmar was as popular as 40K and sold, it would be the same price as 40K.

*edit*

By sold I mean GW trying to sell the game and push it. Thing is what boggles me is why is GW doing these "changes" if they can get away with the prices they are charging? Smart man would say "stop doing what is pushing your customers away not keep doing it and doing it even more."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.

Hey! Finecast was a great idea!

And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!

The Auld Grump

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.

Okay okay, you got me, I stand corrected

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
For someone who cried so much about me daring to mention "0-1" you're weirdly attached to a FoC system which basically amounts to "1-2 of this, 0-2 of that, 2-6 of this, 0-3 of that and 0-3 of that and 0-1 of that other thing".

You do know FOC's aren't limited to 1 don't you?

0-1 is 1 maximum.

I have no problem fitting 6 HS to my orks though...Was less easy to fit 2 units of swordmasters back in 5th ed of FB when they had 0-X restrictions though. Whether 500 pts game or 3000 pts game 1 swordmaster unit was all you got.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
I think GW are running quite a few experiments, and the battleforces may be one of them.

I would be very surprised if they don't reprint them and if those don't become a permanent part of their product line once more.

These christmas deals have appeared before as well. None of those have become permanent part as of yet so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Can we all agree GW needs to pump their breaks on single blister pack models? I mean, $20.00 USD for a single, often times, mono pose no option model.

What is not fair is go beyond that for any kind of character, like ahriman or kharn did, or the magos dominus. 13-15 (18-20 dollars) euros should be acceptable for what is essentially a model you'll only buy once per army, so long he's well detailed and has a options. The monopose can be given a pass IMO.

Problem IS that you buy once per army. Plastic moulds cost. Therefore the more you sell cheaper you can sell it.

Character prices are always going to be ridiculously priced as long as they are plastic.

If mould costs X and you expect to sell 1000 of them you can obviously price it cheaper than if you expect to sell only 100 of them.

Plastic might be nice material to play around with but it's expensive solution for what you don't sell in bulks. You are never going to be selling as much character models as basic troops. Even less so special characters that can take only 1 so multiples will require some converting so even less need...Who needs multiple eldrads?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I had an interesting conversation on this topic recently with one of my Wife's friends. I keep a couple of display cabinets in my living room with some of my toys in them which she noticed and said that her son had expressed an interest in 40k so she had a look in the GW in town. She was so put off by the prices that she refused to get her son anything and she didn't even want any of my 40k stuff that is currently moldering away in the garage in case it would encourage him. She can certainly afford GW's prices, she went Skiing in France over Christmas, but the 'sticker shock' was obviously too much for her.

Yes the problems can be problem even if you can afford them. Because while YES you could afford to buy them does it provide worth equal to what you pay? Money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere?

I go to Japan pretty much yearly. Spend couple thousands each time. One time more like 10k(albeit that was mega long 2 month holiday). If I didn't go or reduced space I could basically buy army a month(wouldn't get them PAINTED though...Backlog would grow ridiculously).

But value I get in return is not enough to justify. If they were priced more reasonably I wouldn't have problems buying models. For example deathwatch force would be nice and I would need some more space marines. Also chaos would be groovy.

But they have went past price/value so I'm left with 2nd hand outside the occasional good deals GW makes(many which alas go OOP by the time I would have time/money...Damn limited editions). But due to time issues those need to be unpainted(don't have time to strip paint) which makes that less effective so haven't bought much lately.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
For someone who cried so much about me daring to mention "0-1" you're weirdly attached to a FoC system which basically amounts to "1-2 of this, 0-2 of that, 2-6 of this, 0-3 of that and 0-3 of that and 0-1 of that other thing".

You do know FOC's aren't limited to 1 don't you?

Well that's the current system at least, it's been the case only since 7th edition I believe?

Allowing multiple FOCs like we currently have has it's own range of problems and I still think it's a sucky way of dealing with getting people have some organisation to their army.

I guess it's okay if you simply want the illusion of an organisation system, but I think the hallmark of 7th edition is lack of organisation, I can appreciate some people might like that, but to me it's not a great way to construct a game. Great way to construct a miniature buying system though, which is what GW wants and what 40k has become more than a game.

0-1 is 1 maximum.

I have no problem fitting 6 HS to my orks though...Was less easy to fit 2 units of swordmasters back in 5th ed of FB when they had 0-X restrictions though. Whether 500 pts game or 3000 pts game 1 swordmaster unit was all you got.

And I already addressed that in literally the first post I made that you quoted by saying...

You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

Herzlos wrote:
Pocket money was always pretty low in the UK too, but then so were GW prices. I'd easily be able to buy a blister every weekend or so (maybe £5 pocket money, £3 blister, and some sweets).

Exactly. Back then you could buy a blister with (part) of your weekend allowance.

Evidently newer players could not experience the joy of getting your not-really-hard-earned on a Saturday and running to the FLAGS on the afternoon to get 2-3 more metal guys.

One more month and I'll have the full unit

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


Yeah. The school club I ran, (UK. School years 7 to 11), had about 3 kids per year group, so around 15 regulars. As year 11's left, new year 7's replaced them. For the last 5 years, new year 7 kids have turned up, got excited, gone home to check out prices, then come back apologising they won't be joining as they'll never afford their own stuff. And this is from families that send these kids on school ski trips etc. Last year the last 3 kids in year 11 left and the club is no more. It is only down to price. (And before anyone asks, yes, I did have a couple of painted armies I'd done for people to use, but you know people, they want their own stuff).
I'm not a GW hater by any means. But I worry for the overall hobby as I know GW (especially 40k) was the entrance for a lot of people. Now they're gone, what'll happen to the hobby? Consoles will no doubt be blamed, but from the evidence I see, it's GW reducing a market in size with price.

I think it'll just shift away from GW. A friend of mine runs a gaming club in a school (high school I believe) which is oversubscribed (he's got a waiting list of people wanting to join), but they don't play any GW games. The big ones seem to be Tanks! (Gale Force 9 / Battlefront), Yugio and MtG. They fit the hour long slot better and are much cheaper to get into.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.

Hey! Finecast was a great idea!

And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!

The Auld Grump

Don't forget the bendy weapons. I'll never forget that thread where a poster said a GW staffer told them Arjac Rockfist's hammer haft is meant to be curved as it was made of rope.

hobojebus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, Hardcover tends to be pricier than soft cover. That's how it's always been with any book, GW or no.

But not double the price.

Check amazon for books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruin wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.

Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.

Hey! Finecast was a great idea!

And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!

The Auld Grump

Don't forget the bendy weapons. I'll never forget that thread where a poster said a GW staffer told them Arjac Rockfist's hammer haft is meant to be curved as it was made of rope.

Honestly, I've only ever had a few Finecast which I got from a whole army deal on ebay.

Those Finecast had zero problems, no bubbles, and were straightened under slightly warm water in minutes.

That's about twice the time it took to bend metal, so not really worse.

What's more, I could reposition the models so that they're not in exactly the same pose anymore (not on all models mind you, the fire dragons were too monopose for any real changes.


I believe Finecast as a low temp resin wasn't half bad - too bad they weren't able to cast it properly.

morgoth wrote:
Honestly, I've only ever had a few Finecast which I got from a whole army deal on ebay.

Those Finecast had zero problems, no bubbles, and were straightened under slightly warm water in minutes.

That's about twice the time it took to bend metal, so not really worse.

What's more, I could reposition the models so that they're not in exactly the same pose anymore (not on all models mind you, the fire dragons were too monopose for any real changes.


I believe Finecast as a low temp resin wasn't half bad - too bad they weren't able to cast it properly.

Finecast seems to be quite a hit or miss. I have bought maybe like 10 of them and worst I had was small hole in snickhs cloth. Could be even intentional ragged clothes. Either way was easy to fix.

Never had to experience one of those horror stories. Albeit helped that biggest model I ever got was the dwarf high king.

But personally apart from price never had problem with finecast models. So if there wouldn't have been so many miscasts as there seemed to have wouldn't have minded it and certainly would have made more sense for character models than plastic.

RoninXiC wrote:
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

This is factually incorrect. The GHB is exactly "a proper attempt to balance stuff". The points costs were worked out in conjuction with top tournament organizers and players, based on several of the most used community points systems at the time. It is anything but random. Some (certainly not all) points costs are indeed imbalanced, which is why the GHB will be updated annually, again taking feedback and advice from the community collaborators. The GHB process is basically a schoolbook example of how to do points costs right.

Yup.

If anything, GW need to look to what people are enjoying about AoS, and apply that to 40k in some way (but by no means an identical way).

Things I know people like about it?

Free Warscrolls. Unless you want Warscrolls Formations, you needn't buy any rules ever. And for those with tablets and that, downloading the AoS App puts every scroll literally at your finger tips.

Speaking of the App - a 40k app in a similar vein wouldn't go amiss. Make the basic unit rules free for those who want them - that way people mostly in it for the gaming experience needn't shell out on background they're not especially fussed for.

And the design of the Warscrolls....having all the necessary rules for a given unit on a single page is very convenient. Now, how well that could be translated to 40k with it's far wider array of weapons and possible combinations I dunno, but I daresay there's a way round it.

Community Interaction. Don't care what anyone else feels, I find AoS an excellent game - and that GW seem intent on listening and then incorporating feedback is the icing on the cake (for example, how summoning works in matched play, compared to open play)

For me, 40k's biggest issue right now is rules sprawl. I've been out of the loop for some time due to work commitments and an evil 4 hours daily commute. But I got in a game of Apocalypse in November. I needed four books. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Knights and Taghmata. For fielding a relative handful of models (mmm....Ordinatus.).

If they could app their way to reducing that to just taking my ipad (other tablets are available) I'd be happy with that, especially if there's a function like the AoS one where I can add all the Scrolls/Whatevs I'll be using to a single screen.

But, the AoS app still needs work, as it's not quite perfect. For me? Allow multiple instances of a single scroll to be selected, to reflect my unit size and army composition. And also, some way to log my ownership of the physical books so I can access all the content I already own on paper, electronically.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

If anything, GW need to look to what people are enjoying about AoS, and apply that to 40k in some way (but by no means an identical way).

Things I know people like about it?

Free Warscrolls. Unless you want Warscrolls Formations, you needn't buy any rules ever. And for those with tablets and that, downloading the AoS App puts every scroll literally at your finger tips.

Speaking of the App - a 40k app in a similar vein wouldn't go amiss. Make the basic unit rules free for those who want them - that way people mostly in it for the gaming experience needn't shell out on background they're not especially fussed for.

And the design of the Warscrolls....having all the necessary rules for a given unit on a single page is very convenient. Now, how well that could be translated to 40k with it's far wider array of weapons and possible combinations I dunno, but I daresay there's a way round it.

Community Interaction. Don't care what anyone else feels, I find AoS an excellent game - and that GW seem intent on listening and then incorporating feedback is the icing on the cake (for example, how summoning works in matched play, compared to open play)

For me, 40k's biggest issue right now is rules sprawl. I've been out of the loop for some time due to work commitments and an evil 4 hours daily commute. But I got in a game of Apocalypse in November. I needed four books. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Knights and Taghmata. For fielding a relative handful of models (mmm....Ordinatus.).

If they could app their way to reducing that to just taking my ipad (other tablets are available) I'd be happy with that, especially if there's a function like the AoS one where I can add all the Scrolls/Whatevs I'll be using to a single screen.

But, the AoS app still needs work, as it's not quite perfect. For me? Allow multiple instances of a single scroll to be selected, to reflect my unit size and army composition. And also, some way to log my ownership of the physical books so I can access all the content I already own on paper, electronically.

Now that's a good idea. Have all the rules for the unit explained on a single page and not need to find it. Yeah, they totally need to include som electronic code for physical owners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

This is factually incorrect. The GHB is exactly "a proper attempt to balance stuff". The points costs were worked out in conjuction with top tournament organizers and players, based on several of the most used community points systems at the time. It is anything but random. Some (certainly not all) points costs are indeed imbalanced, which is why the GHB will be updated annually, again taking feedback and advice from the community collaborators. The GHB process is basically a schoolbook example of how to do points costs right.

Plus there's the fact that matched play also changes how to win the game. This is something that 99.9% people forget but what makes the game be won is getting more points, but killng all models still ends the match. So if you just go and make a list poorly designed for misions and whose only purpose is to kill stuff, go and slaughter the enemy but don't score a single point, you still loose. IMO that's a better system than tabling equalling a victory found in most games.

And again, I really cannot praise the AoS App, imperfect as it is.

I bought the GHB through the app, and that opened up the points values for every unit in the game (including those without models. Like Khemri).

As stuff is added, in theory the points will be added (shall find out next weekend with the Tzeentchian goodies land).

If/when points are tweaked, they'll be updated in the app as well.

It really is a nifty little tool - and following my feedback, GW are looking at a way to sort my main bugbear of allowing the registration of physical copies within the app to open up the attendant formations and other stuff.

I'd absolutely love a 40k equivalent! I mean, there's one for Bloodbowl (though you only get the very basic stuff for free, which is a pain)

Be nice if it was at least able to recognise you own the army ebooks bought from the Apple Store.

Also, on book prices....

We might just be seeing a shift there too.

Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.

Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.

Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, on book prices....

We might just be seeing a shift there too.

Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.

Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.

Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.

So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.

Thank you GW I am so grateful.

Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out
I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.

Kislev isn't entirely gone...

Gav Thorpe's novel features (albeit briefly) an entity that could be described as Kislev Incarnate....lives in an Onion Domed Tower, was previously worshipped/attended by one of the Stormcast.

AoS remains in its infancy. I get the shift from darker fantasy to more Marvelesque is jarring, and not to everyone's tastes, but I'm enjoying it so far.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.

When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out
I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.

Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out
I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.

Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.

I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay.
Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?

I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.

They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.

Araby would have been an awesome army list I think. Djinn, camel guys, war elephant? Basically haradrim in LOTR. They had an army list for Warmaster with like flying carpets and such, it was essentially Evil Aladdin.

Cathay and Nippon though I think would have been too generic (but then again Empire and Bretonnia weren't that unique either, literally Holy Roman Empire and French Arthurian), and would likely have been combined into one (think "Armies of the Far East") since they would be similar.

There was also... Tilea I think? The Not-Rome with Not-Legions that also had renaissance stuff (Lucrezzia Belladonna or whatever her name was, Not-Lucretia Borgia).

I would have loved an Araby army since in the fluff they had a large war with Bretonnia (including the evil Vizier Jafar IIRC)

Wayniac wrote:

I would have loved an Araby army since in the fluff they had a large war with Bretonnia (including the evil Vizier Jafar IIRC)

Evil and Vizier is basically a tautology

Wayniac wrote:
Araby would have been an awesome army list I think. Djinn, camel guys, war elephant? Basically haradrim in LOTR. They had an army list for Warmaster with like flying carpets and such, it was essentially Evil Aladdin.

Cathay and Nippon though I think would have been too generic (but then again Empire and Bretonnia weren't that unique either, literally Holy Roman Empire and French Arthurian), and would likely have been combined into one (think "Armies of the Far East") since they would be similar.

There was also... Tilea I think? The Not-Rome with Not-Legions that also had renaissance stuff (Lucrezzia Belladonna or whatever her name was, Not-Lucretia Borgia).

I would have loved an Araby army since in the fluff they had a large war with Bretonnia (including the evil Vizier Jafar IIRC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about Bretonnia and Araby war. A supplement covering that would have been nice

I think it might be possible to make distinct unit types for Cathay and Nippon. Maybe not as a full fledged army book, but perhaps as a minor list like they did for Kislev and Albion.
Nippon would have muskets (the Japanese developed firearms in the 16th century, brought over by Portuguese traders), the Cathay would have things like rocket batteries and repeating crossbows (both were used in actual china), maybe terracotta soldiers in cathay and Oni like units in Nippon. There's a lot of inspiration you can draw from Chinese and Japanese history and myth.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are they destroying it though?

For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.

GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.

Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)

Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.

When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.

Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.