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.

Excited.

So are they going to discount all current books?





LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLL

Massively excited. I'm glad they had the courage to break the Codex cycle and start fresh. There is no other way to achieve more reasonable balance between factions than design them all together in parallel. It's a painful bandaid to pull as we all have new books that won't be used for rules, but it's a potentially awesome step if it leads to more balance between armies.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Actually you can pick models from any faction in the game, but the way abilities work means that you are far better off going mono faction so they all work together and getting the alliance benefit on top.

However, so far absolutely nobody has suggested this is what is going to happen for 40K beyond a few fear mongers on here who saw the new website navigation set up, put 2 and 2 together and got 4000.

Wait, you can pick models from any faction in the game in AoS? Bahahaha, it's worse than I thought! It may be jumping to conclusions but it certainly is a strange way to group the different armies that is very reminiscent of Grand Alliances.

It's the same in Unbound play for 40k. Then again, that's ONLY Open Play.

When you get into Campaign and Matched play, it tends to adhere to Grand Alliances.

On that note, they're not going to do that with 40K, as the Xenos are far too varied to allow for it.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Warhammer 7th edition was published on may of 2014 (3 years). Since then ALL its publications, counting all books and the BRB, have been 1750 euros which is an average of 583 euros per year at, generally, the lowest cost possible.
Age of sigmar was released on July of 2015 (1.75 years). Since then ALL its publications, counting all books GHB and the namesake book, have amounted to 688.5 (forgot one book). That's 393,43 euros per year.

Age of Sigmar is 33% cheaper.

Please try again with a REAL argument.

Tut, tut you are being naughty and comparing unequal things.. not a great method Firstly I compared approx. two years. The year before Kirby left was well known for the stinging price increases. You should only compare periods that are equivalent otherwise you are artificially biasing your selection to argue your case (I could simply include the last 25 years of 40k supplements and compare that to 1.75 years of AoS for example). AoS didn't have any sales pre -June 2015. To be more fair you'd have to include the costs for WFB in the same time period, but then even this is wonky because it is a completely different game/sales strategy then. Also I have a strong suspicion you are probably picking and choosing things to fit an argument. Simple maths shows me that you are that the average cost per book equates to about £50 per month on average (and lets assume 50% of these months were WFB/AoS focussed) then that's equivalent to each month £100 worth of rulebooks/campaign books/codexes every time GW releases a supplement which is way over what I would expect. My suspicion is that you are including non-comparable things here (especially if you are including FW), but as you've not listed the things that's difficult to ascertain.

So I very much doubt your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Of course you could compare 25 years vs 2. IF you made the yearly average like I did and based my argument on. Which is why also I spoke of July where there were sales of AoS already.

And no, I didn't include forgeworld, which would make the balance even worse.

And I'm working on euros, by the way, I think stating it multiple times would have made it obvious.

But you seem to be using some strong mental gymnastics to convince yourself of your argument, since you seem to equate 25+ books as equals to 14 publications.

So far, there is nothing to dislike as current 40k turned into a joke with all the formations and additional rules. Unfortunately, I don't really have trust in the current rule writers and I expect a ridiculously shallow and boring game a la AOS (which is pretty much the checkers of wargaming, no matter what 3 or 4 delusionned fans spew). After all, while I really like SWA, it is pretty much a direct copy of Necromunda. The only difference is the campaign rules: they are terrible, and really shows the mentality of the design studio (lesser is better).

Still, I'll give a chance to the runner, as we say in french, and sincerly hope that GW will prove me wrong.

I think that in time we will come to live with the removal of all the Codices. Many of us went through this once before when 2nd Ed came out, and it sucked then, and it still kinda sucks now, but we moved on and kept playing (for the most part). Those of us who bought hard into 6th Ed also got experience the crushing realisation that 7th Edition was out before 6th Ed's corpse was even cold.

That sucked a little more, and a link in my sig covers my feelings there if you care to read them.

However, this post isn't about edition changes and whether the AoS'ing of 40K is an inherent bad or just plain bad. No. Rather this is instead a chance for us to look back at 7th Edition, a very curious edition that, for all it's many, many, many, many, many, many faults gave us quite a lot in terms of factions and new miniatures. In fact, I'd argue that 7th Ed was perhaps the best edition for the depth and breadth it added to the game as far as player choice is concerned. Terrible bloated rules and formations that utterly ruined the game, but the sheer amount of stuff that we got, including some factions that had either been long absent or missing altogether, stuff that some of us had been waiting decades for, simply cannot be ignored and, in fact, should be celebrated.

In that light this post is something akin to what we get at shows like the Oscars, or the Grammys, a brief In Memoriam for the Cocides that shone brightly for such a short space of time.

As with any In Memoriam, it requires music, but rather than dictate the feelings you should have with one particular piece, I'll give you all a choice of three:

1. Sad sorrow.
2. Quiet contemplation.
3. Pure snark.

And without further ado, let us take this journey together, as we test to see how many pictures Dakka's board software will let me attach to a single post... (click the spoilers to reveal each fallen friend):



















Ahh, the memories.

The other advantage, if they're doing what they did with AoS and having Dataslates for each unit, is that it then becomes really easy to tweak and re-balance - as it can be done on a unit by unit basis, rather than having to do the entire book.

Colour me interested. I greatly enjoy AoS, as it's a straight forward game with good tactical depth (and anyone who says it's shallow is genuinely lying, or plain hasn't played the game), and all without mobbing us with rules.

I don't think 40k is going to be as Rules light (it's always had a greater variety of weapons, all with more specific roles than Warhammer did), but AoS has shown GW can create a more-or-less balanced game.

Lord Kragan wrote:


No, what you did was a poor comparison, you compared a timeframe where the bulk of AoS releases happened (around 20+) while 40k was more or less stagnant in releases (14 publications: 3 sets of 2 campaign books-Damocles, Fenris, Traitor's hate- 2 codexii, 3 supplements and a 3-book campaign).

Stormcasts got a third book to solve the issue. SCE MK II costs 25 euros and covers the other two books (and more). It wasn't meant to drip-feed rules, but to solve the drip-feeding.

Alternatively you've proved the point I was making. You have more supplements for AoS in the same period as 40k, ergo each book has a smaller amount of information in it requiring more of them so if you want to collect everything it costs more overall. Yes there are only 1.75 years worth of AoS releases and it is always preferable to have a larger sample set. But unfortunately I do not have a time machine (if I did then I could go and get 5 years of data and provide it). Yes there were a of AoS releases initially, however there have also been periods of lower AoS releases. However I can only work on 1.75 years of data because that is all we have.

The difference is you are conjecturing that the releases aren't equivalent because you *believe* 40k is stagnant (we don't know this we don't have sale figures). You can't also provide any evidence that this has made any difference to the release schedule (it may have been exactly the same if there was no 8th edition in the works or whether sales were better).

 Azreal13 wrote:
I heartily endorse this move, its the best thing to happen to 40K in years, and I'm now revising my position from "wouldn't play 40K if you paid me" to "optimistic to try out the new rules."

This where I'm at, too. I was really excited when AoS came out and it's been a pleasure to see that game develop in what I consider the right direction. Applying those lessons to 40k is the right move.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ahh, the memories.

Exalted! Best post I've read this year so far.

I'm nervously excited for the new rules. Hopefully they keep the feel of the game and don't completely change the rules. I would just like to see some semblance of balance. My Orks can only believe in themselves so much.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

Well, the Imperial Agents book was a pivotal moment in the history of the Warhammer fourty thousand codex, bringing us...

Who am I kidding, I have no idea what Imp Agents is either.

Imperial Agents was filler.

 Manchu wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I heartily endorse this move, its the best thing to happen to 40K in years, and I'm now revising my position from "wouldn't play 40K if you paid me" to "optimistic to try out the new rules."

This where I'm at, too. I was really excited when AoS came out and it's been a pleasure to see that game develop in what I consider the right direction. Applying those lessons to 40k is the right move.

Couldn't agree more - let's keep the positive hype train moving in the right direction!


(For now!)

So here is a guess, the new marines are custodes in ultramarine colors since Robute is now the new emp. Also given the image we saw of alpha legion in mark IV armor I can't help but think that that the cover art is alpha legion vs death guard, colors seem right though if alpha legion is rocking an imperial laurel things have changed.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Actually, I'm quite happy. They're taking the lessons learnt from AoS and 40k's past and applying them. This could be the best thing to happen to it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I heartily endorse this move, its the best thing to happen to 40K in years, and I'm now revising my position from "wouldn't play 40K if you paid me" to "optimistic to try out the new rules."

This where I'm at, too. I was really excited when AoS came out and it's been a pleasure to see that game develop in what I consider the right direction. Applying those lessons to 40k is the right move.

I haven't had a personality transplant, so I'm still healthily cynical that they'll fluff it, but that's currently balanced with the distinct possibility that they upped all the feths getting AOS out of the delivery room and they'll have a better grip on what they're doing with 40K.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


No, what you did was a poor comparison, you compared a timeframe where the bulk of AoS releases happened (around 20+) while 40k was more or less stagnant in releases (14 publications: 3 sets of 2 campaign books-Damocles, Fenris, Traitor's hate- 2 codexii, 3 supplements and a 3-book campaign).

Stormcasts got a third book to solve the issue. SCE MK II costs 25 euros and covers the other two books (and more). It wasn't meant to drip-feed rules, but to solve the drip-feeding.

Alternatively you've proved the point I was making. You have more supplements for AoS in the same period as 40k, ergo each book has a smaller amount of information in it requiring more of them so if you want to collect everything it costs more overall. Yes there are only 1.75 years worth of AoS releases and it is always preferable to have a larger sample set. But unfortunately I do not have a time machine (if I did then I could go and get 5 years of data and provide it). Yes there were a of AoS releases initially, however there have also been periods of lower AoS releases. However I can only work on 1.75 years of data because that is all we have.

The difference is you are conjecturing that the releases aren't equivalent because you *believe* 40k is stagnant (we don't know this we don't have sale figures). You can't also provide any evidence that this has made any difference to the release schedule (it may have been exactly the same if there was no 8th edition in the works or whether sales were better).

Stagnant in releases. Please don't put words in other people's mouths when arguing with them. I, in no way spoke of sales nor them affecting release schedule. I said that in the period you compared there were not as many releases as in the previous period. Nothing else. I believe and see that there were less releases in the period you mention for 40k than for AoS.

Genestealer cults had 104 pages and costed 33 euros on softback. Flesh-eater courts had 104 pages and costed 20 euros. Beastclaw raiders had 120 for 20 euros. Bonesplitters 110 for 20 too. So who exactly has less information?

All-gates had 305 pages and costed 46euros on softback (52 on hardback). Gathering storm books had 136 pages each and costed 40 euros each.. All gates offered a ratio information/cost almost twice that of the GS books.

Mont'ka/Kauyon books had similar prizes to AoS realmgate wars while they had 200 pages and the other clocked in around the 300.

The launch book costed 5 euros more than Wrath of magnus, a 9% more of cost... yet had 62 pages more, 30% more info.

I'm done with this.

if they scale up the marines, I sure hope the do the same to the CSM. Would be ridiculous to see the supposed biggest threats to the Imperium being dwarfed by the defenders of the Imperium

I wonder if they'll also poke around with the fluff, give the Imperial Guard some of its teeth back instead of it being the joke of the setting it is right now.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Caederes wrote:


I'm going off your earlier posts and that one, so you can consider it an overall response to the points you were making in this thread.

Which were false anyway. It costs way more to cover everything in Warhammer 40,000 when you account for all the FW books.

Jeez, then you really should read the posts in more detail. I have *never* said that to buy everything 40k related is cheaper than AoS, that's plainly ridiculous because 40k has been around much longer than AoS. What I did was *compare* the approximate costs of AoS to 40k over a two year period since AoS was released (and to be fair that's generous on AoS because it has been less than two years). Forgeworld have what released one/two books maybe in this period. That still makes 40k cheaper overall when comparing on a timeline basis.

And yes, I know what you're talking about with background narrative stuff. Guess what? That's in the Battletome for the army you buy. You don't need an AoS campaign book any more than you need a 40K campaign book.

But you would do if you wanted to play a campaign would you not and know about the background. I'll point out again for the god knows how many number of times. This is about comparing *like for like* not picking and choosing the element and then pointing out you don't need the rest

The cost is not drip fed more. To play a Stormcast Eternals army in Matched Play, you need the Battletome and the Generals Handbook. You cannot buy anything else to add on to a pure Stormcast Eternal army, all you have access to for Matched Play is in those two books. To play a World Eaters army, you need the Chaos Space Marine Codex, the Traitor Legion codex and the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. You can get optional - and crucial - rules support from Imperial Armor 13 and other sources like Imperial Armor: Apocalypse.

Yet you are completely ignoring that over these two years if you had been playing Sigmaries then there would have been three books released + the GH each one with a handful of units, hence over that time you have been drip fed the rules for them. With the Chaos Space Marines you are also unreasonably trying to select a weak army and saying this is what you need to play a game when in reality all you need to play a World Eaters Army is the rulebook and the 40k book. Whether that is an effective army is an entirely different question. This is not about picking an army to make a comparison because that is biased by the army being selected. Therefore you have to look holistically over the same time interval to come to a cost per month/year etc that provides the equal and equivalent experience.

No, what you did was a poor comparison, you compared a timeframe where the bulk of AoS releases happened (around 20+) while 40k was more or less stagnant in releases (14 publications: 3 sets of 2 campaign books-Damocles, Fenris, Traitor's hate- 2 codexii, 3 supplements and a 3-book campaign).

Stormcasts got a third book to solve the issue. SCE MK II costs 25 euros and covers the other two books (and more). It wasn't meant to drip-feed rules, but to solve the drip-feeding.

Everything else aside, calling 14 books over two years "stagnant" is farcical. It wasn't that long ago that two or three books a year was considered breakneck speed for GW.

As to the topic - meh, the rules will probably be as functional as any 40K edition; some stuff will work great, some will be broken as hell, attempts to fix the broken stuff will break more stuff, oh look time for another edition/Handbook. Previously I didn't care that much because the rules were nothing more than a convenient way to interact with a setting I really liked, but in the wake of them choosing to change 40K from grimdark hopeless setting to herobright ongoing narrative everything will be judged strictly on its own merits and GW haven't produced a set of rules that could stand strictly on its own merits since the late 90's. I'll give the free version a go and who knows, maybe they'll have struck gold, but somehow I doubt it.

Ah well, I always planned to get serious about putting together a full set of 2nd and 3rd Edition books, now's as good a time as any to start.

So 30K and 40K are separate systems. Sweet.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Caederes wrote:


I'm going off your earlier posts and that one, so you can consider it an overall response to the points you were making in this thread.

Which were false anyway. It costs way more to cover everything in Warhammer 40,000 when you account for all the FW books.

Jeez, then you really should read the posts in more detail. I have *never* said that to buy everything 40k related is cheaper than AoS, that's plainly ridiculous because 40k has been around much longer than AoS. What I did was *compare* the approximate costs of AoS to 40k over a two year period since AoS was released (and to be fair that's generous on AoS because it has been less than two years). Forgeworld have what released one/two books maybe in this period. That still makes 40k cheaper overall when comparing on a timeline basis.

And yes, I know what you're talking about with background narrative stuff. Guess what? That's in the Battletome for the army you buy. You don't need an AoS campaign book any more than you need a 40K campaign book.

But you would do if you wanted to play a campaign would you not and know about the background. I'll point out again for the god knows how many number of times. This is about comparing *like for like* not picking and choosing the element and then pointing out you don't need the rest

The cost is not drip fed more. To play a Stormcast Eternals army in Matched Play, you need the Battletome and the Generals Handbook. You cannot buy anything else to add on to a pure Stormcast Eternal army, all you have access to for Matched Play is in those two books. To play a World Eaters army, you need the Chaos Space Marine Codex, the Traitor Legion codex and the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. You can get optional - and crucial - rules support from Imperial Armor 13 and other sources like Imperial Armor: Apocalypse.

Yet you are completely ignoring that over these two years if you had been playing Sigmaries then there would have been three books released + the GH each one with a handful of units, hence over that time you have been drip fed the rules for them. With the Chaos Space Marines you are also unreasonably trying to select a weak army and saying this is what you need to play a game when in reality all you need to play a World Eaters Army is the rulebook and the 40k book. Whether that is an effective army is an entirely different question. This is not about picking an army to make a comparison because that is biased by the army being selected. Therefore you have to look holistically over the same time interval to come to a cost per month/year etc that provides the equal and equivalent experience.

No, what you did was a poor comparison, you compared a timeframe where the bulk of AoS releases happened (around 20+) while 40k was more or less stagnant in releases (14 publications: 3 sets of 2 campaign books-Damocles, Fenris, Traitor's hate- 2 codexii, 3 supplements and a 3-book campaign).

Stormcasts got a third book to solve the issue. SCE MK II costs 25 euros and covers the other two books (and more). It wasn't meant to drip-feed rules, but to solve the drip-feeding.

Everything else aside, calling 14 books over two years "stagnant" is farcical. It wasn't that long ago that two or three books a year was considered breakneck speed for GW.

As to the topic - meh, the rules will probably be as functional as any 40K edition; some stuff will work great, some will be broken as hell, attempts to fix the broken stuff will break more stuff, oh look time for another edition/Handbook. Previously I didn't care that much because the rules were nothing more than a convenient way to interact with a setting I really liked, but in the wake of them choosing to change 40K from grimdark hopeless setting to herobright ongoing narrative everything will be judged strictly on its own merits and GW haven't produced a set of rules that could stand strictly on its own merits since the late 90's. I'll give the free version a go and who knows, maybe they'll have struck gold, but somehow I doubt it.

Ah well, I always planned to get serious about putting together a full set of 2nd and 3rd Edition books, now's as good a time as any to start.

I should have added "comparatively". My bad, in retrospect.

I just wanna kinda apologize for my errant behaviour tonight, drinking can do that to people :(

I don't want to sound like an AoS apologist but I think those pessimistic about the new edition should ease up a bit.
Yeah, GW messed up big time with AoS initially but the reason AoS is booming now is because GW did what it rarely used to do and actually acknowledged and fixed their mistakes. Regardless of whether you like or dislike AoS now, it's undeniable that it's current state is incomparably superior to it's original incarnation.

Basically...give 8th Edition 40K a chance. Wait until we see rules before you consider selling your armies off. I've talked to more than a few Age of Sigmar converts that initially rejected the game and got rid of their nice armies only to come back with their tails between their legs wishing they had been more patient. In fact, I'm one of them

Like with any new edition, there's nothing stopping you from playing the old edition (maybe not in GW stores and most tournaments) if you don't like it, but at least give it a try. I've always taken issue with those that trash AoS without ever actually having given it a proper spin, and I don't want the same to happen with 8th Edition 40K.

The fact that we are getting the three ways to play at release is proof of GW having learned lessons from the AoS release. Stay positive

 streetsamurai wrote:
if they scale up the marines, I sure hope the do the same to the CSM. Would be ridiculous to see the supposed biggest threats to the Imperium being dwarfed by the defenders of the Imperium

The rumours are that these are a distinct new revision of the Marine blueprint instigated by Guilliman. To retroactively have 10000 year old veterans become bigger because something changed in the Loyalist production method in the 41st Millenium wouldn't make sense.

A new, chunkier, CSM kit wouldn't be worst thing, maybe with more evil and less topknots, but these new Marines are their own thing.

Apologies if already discussed, but thread is TL/DR...

That image. Clearly Deathguard on the right....but I'm having a hard time identifying the Chapter on the left. Doesn't seem blue enough for Ultramarines?

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Of course you could compare 25 years vs 2. IF you made the yearly average like I did and based my argument on. Which is why also I spoke of July where there were sales of AoS already.

And no, I didn't include forgeworld, which would make the balance even worse.

And I'm working on euros, by the way, I think stating it multiple times would have made it obvious.

But you seem to be using some strong mental gymnastics to convince yourself of your argument, since you seem to equate 25+ books as equals to 14 publications.

Wow, you can use wiki thanks for that, I never knew such a page existed.

However the fact that you've just pointed to a page and then stated that I could fairly use an average of 25 years compared to 2 shows that your understanding of the concept and statistics is weak at best. I did try and give an example that was hideously wrong, but it obviously was missed by some distance. You cannot compare effects over different timescales like that because you are including additional factors that cannot be adequately compensated for. For example 25 years ago the GW development/manufacturing team was almost certainly smaller and therefore the number and type of things they could release would be inevitably be smaller. This would artificially bias the average of 25 year 40k releases to being lower compared to the 1.75 years of AoS releases - it's a pre-selection bias on my part. That is why you should only compare equivalent timescales because it is one less factor to skew the results.

Yes I am aware you are working in Euros, I'm working £'s, it makes no fundamental difference. Both the Euro/£ rate is close enough to 1:1 that it's not really an issue and we are also comparing costs within the Euro/£ and not across them (so 100 Euro to 50 Euro is the same percentage wise as £50 to £25). That you needed to highlight this makes me wonder whether you are truly understanding the conversation because it makes no difference in a significant way

No mental gymnastics needed. 25+ books for AoS is more than 14+ books for 40k. Hence it only re-enforces the argument that to fully engage with the AoS hobby *like for like* (which is where this argument started) has been more expensive than the 40k one in the same period and if the new 40k follows the same path then that is almost certainly be the same (if you are only interested in the matched game, of which there seems to be some obsession with, aspect then it is likely to be cheaper if the rules are free)

 Azreal13 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
if they scale up the marines, I sure hope the do the same to the CSM. Would be ridiculous to see the supposed biggest threats to the Imperium being dwarfed by the defenders of the Imperium

The rumours are that these are a distinct new revision of the Marine blueprint instigated by Guilliman. To retroactively have 10000 year old veterans become bigger because something changed in the Loyalist production method in the 41st Millenium wouldn't make sense.

A new, chunkier, CSM kit wouldn't be worst thing, maybe with more evil and less topknots, but these new Marines are their own thing.

So it seems that the setting is indeed getting less and less grimdark, and more and more herobright. Such a same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Of course you could compare 25 years vs 2. IF you made the yearly average like I did and based my argument on. Which is why also I spoke of July where there were sales of AoS already.

And no, I didn't include forgeworld, which would make the balance even worse.

And I'm working on euros, by the way, I think stating it multiple times would have made it obvious.

But you seem to be using some strong mental gymnastics to convince yourself of your argument, since you seem to equate 25+ books as equals to 14 publications.

Wow, you can use wiki thanks for that, I never knew such a page existed.

However the fact that you've just pointed to a page and then stated that I could fairly use an average of 25 years compared to 2 shows that your understanding of the concept and statistics is weak at best. I did try and give an example that was hideously wrong, but it obviously was missed by some distance. You cannot compare effects over different timescales like that because you are including additional factors that cannot be adequately compensated for. For example 25 years ago the GW development/manufacturing team was almost certainly smaller and therefore the number and type of things they could release would be inevitably be smaller. This would artificially bias the average of 25 year 40k releases to being lower compared to the 1.75 years of AoS releases - it's a pre-selection bias on my part. That is why you should only compare equivalent timescales because it is one less factor to skew the results.

Yes I am aware you are working in Euros, I'm working £'s, it makes no fundamental difference. Both the Euro/£ rate is close enough to 1:1 that it's not really an issue and we are also comparing costs within the Euro/£ and not across them (so 100 Euro to 50 Euro is the same percentage wise as £50 to £25). That you needed to highlight this makes me wonder whether you are truly understanding the conversation because it makes no difference in a significant way

No mental gymnastics needed. 25+ books for AoS is more than 14+ books for 40k. Hence it only re-enforces the argument that to fully engage with the AoS hobby *like for like* (which is where this argument started) has been more expensive than the 40k one in the same period and if the new 40k follows the same path then that is almost certainly be the same (if you are only interested in the matched game, of which there seems to be some obsession with, aspect then it is likely to be cheaper if the rules are free)

yeah, using yearly average from such different era is farcial at best. Not to mention that you would also have to adjust for inflation.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Of course you could compare 25 years vs 2. IF you made the yearly average like I did and based my argument on. Which is why also I spoke of July where there were sales of AoS already.

And no, I didn't include forgeworld, which would make the balance even worse.

And I'm working on euros, by the way, I think stating it multiple times would have made it obvious.

But you seem to be using some strong mental gymnastics to convince yourself of your argument, since you seem to equate 25+ books as equals to 14 publications.

Wow, you can use wiki thanks for that, I never knew such a page existed.

However the fact that you've just pointed to a page and then stated that I could fairly use an average of 25 years compared to 2 shows that your understanding of the concept and statistics is weak at best. I did try and give an example that was hideously wrong, but it obviously was missed by some distance. You cannot compare effects over different timescales like that because you are including additional factors that cannot be adequately compensated for. For example 25 years ago the GW development/manufacturing team was almost certainly smaller and therefore the number and type of things they could release would be inevitably be smaller. This would artificially bias the average of 25 year 40k releases to being lower compared to the 1.75 years of AoS releases - it's a pre-selection bias on my part. That is why you should only compare equivalent timescales because it is one less factor to skew the results.

Yes I am aware you are working in Euros, I'm working £'s, it makes no fundamental difference. Both the Euro/£ rate is close enough to 1:1 that it's not really an issue and we are also comparing costs within the Euro/£ and not across them (so 100 Euro to 50 Euro is the same percentage wise as £50 to £25). That you needed to highlight this makes me wonder whether you are truly understanding the conversation because it makes no difference in a significant way

No mental gymnastics needed. 25+ books for AoS is more than 14+ books for 40k. Hence it only re-enforces the argument that to fully engage with the AoS hobby *like for like* (which is where this argument started) has been more expensive than the 40k one in the same period and if the new 40k follows the same path then that is almost certainly be the same (if you are only interested in the matched game, of which there seems to be some obsession with, aspect then it is likely to be cheaper if the rules are free)

I was kidding, you know? Not too big periods of time, though, are more manageable. But you seem to go a few comments behind, so I'll leave the final response for the time you actually catch on with everything, specially the fact that you don't seem to understand that GW works on price brackets. A book is actually more expensive in euros than in pounds in quite a signifiant fashion.That you don't know shows YOU are the one with the weak grasp. And yes, 14+ has had less releases because it's been stagnant in that department. During the previous months to AoS kickstart it had a more intense release schedule, with months even going as far as releasing 2-3 books a month.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
if they scale up the marines, I sure hope the do the same to the CSM. Would be ridiculous to see the supposed biggest threats to the Imperium being dwarfed by the defenders of the Imperium

The rumours are that these are a distinct new revision of the Marine blueprint instigated by Guilliman. To retroactively have 10000 year old veterans become bigger because something changed in the Loyalist production method in the 41st Millenium wouldn't make sense.

A new, chunkier, CSM kit wouldn't be worst thing, maybe with more evil and less topknots, but these new Marines are their own thing.

So it seems that the setting is indeed getting less and less grimdark, and more and more herobright. Such a same

Too early to call. The last time the Emperor let a Primarch in on the Astartes production method wasn't exactly all sunshine and rainbows.