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.

Veridian is sold like once every 6 months (no joke, i had to wait 5 months for mine).

We cant know if its b.c many players bought them, or if they made low amounts when they did make them.

BrianDavion wrote:

Any evidence for how well Veridian and Celestine sold? Wasn't Celestine bundled with the first ever loyalist Primarch to be released? I'm sure that had nothing to do with the kit selling out though, right?

she was bundled with Cawl and Greyfax.

Right you are. My mistake.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Veridian is sold like once every 6 months (no joke, i had to wait 5 months for mine).

We cant know if its b.c many players bought them, or if they made low amounts when they did make them.

Exactly!

It's impossible to estimate a faction's popularity based on how much it's played.
A large portion of people buy minis and never play them. Another large portion only plays with a small group of friends at their homes, and you never hear about them. And yet another portion of people have multiple armies, and only play the one that has the best rules at the moment.
In other words, the models you see on the table are a tiny, non representative fraction of what is sold.

The only way to have reliable information is to have access to sale numbers. Maybe some local shops provide these numbers (I haven't looked for that), but GW certainly doesn't. And quite many kits (including most of the SoB range for instance) are direct only, so there's no way to get any information on that. So I think it's pointless to argue over factions popularity.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
New Mek, New Meganobz and Big Mek in Mega Armour, New SAG Big Mek, New Painboy, New Flashgitz, New Mork/Gorkanaut. You missed all them huh? Weird. There was a pretty big deal made of it. There might be more too, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm really sorry, I apparently used some pretty unreliable source to check date.
See, I wanted to check things out before I asked you, and the only source on release date that I could find was on this Warseer thread:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?297915-Games-Workshop-40K-Release-Timeline-(Mk-II)
Sadly it stopped at July 2016.
But it does list the new Mek at June 2014, the new Meganobz at July 2014, the new Big Mek in Mega Armour as July 2014, the new Shokk Attak Gun Big Mek as June 2014, the new Painboy as June 2014, the new Flashgitz as June 2014, the new Mork/Gorkanaut as June 2014.
Thanks for correcting me. Just out of curiosity though, as I am not 100% certain, are all those dates on Warseer wrong, or are Orks so popular that all those models got a second new release since then? And don't forget to contact Tymell on Warseer to help him correct the dates, or add in the date for the second version of all those models .

Anyway, pretty nice to see that Orks aren't actually so unpopular that they got zero new release in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, except for the Index. That was pretty sad, showed how noone was interested in playing them…


Where can I find some actual data about LVO? I somehow get this feeling that having access to those could lead to some pretty hilarious exchanges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I found one.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/02/40k-lvo-faction-breakdown.html
There was indeed more Necron players than Ork players. And the thing is: the numbers are massively skewed in Orks favor because it only takes the primary detachment faction into account, while Sisters are often taken as allies (see, Celestine).
It wasn't “just the top 100” either because the numbers add up to 382.
Wow.

ERJAK wrote:


Orkz were outnumbered MASSIVELY by Necrons at LVO and there's an absolutely 0% chance it was due to rules.

The hard fact is Orks don't get releases because there's no market for them and no one will buy them, even if a bunch of people say 'Oh, I love orkz i'd totally play them if they had better plastics, but then they come out and no one buys any. Just look at the wazzdakka jet thing.

The problem with orks at tournaments is that usually conversions and scratch built stuff aren't allowed. And the majority of the orks players collected them mostly for that reason, to have an highly customized army.

An ork army with only official models is extremely expensive, they still have the index, they're one-dimensional and slow to play at competitive levels, and they don't received a new release since 2014 other than a new sprue added to an already existing kit. These are the reasons why you don't see many orks lists in tournaments, but they are way more common than necrons.

It is interesting that Orks and Sisters seem to at least share some similar problems. I know quite a few Sisters players who are using third-party models and are using scratch-built stuff(often using third-party solutions). To have a completely legal SoB army(that only have an index) is extremely expensive.

Regarding which is more common(Orks or Necrons) it is hard to say. I think quite a few people have Orks lying around thanks to the 5th edition Starter(that's how I got my Ork army started besides the 2nd edition box many moons ago), but Necrons have also been deceptively popular as they aren't prohibitively expensive to collect and for an average player they are a breeze to paint(know a lot of people who collect them solely for that reason).

Ultimately fresus is right. We would need actual GW sales data to really know anything. Everything else is just conjecture or anecdotal evidence. Hell, if I were to use anecdotal evidence I could easily claim there are more Sisters players where I live than Orks.

Just for extra reference, here is a list of factions that got new releases in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 :
- Space Marines (ex: lots, no further details needed)
- CWE (ex: Autarch, Windriders, Farseer/Warlock Skyrunner, new Ynnari subfaction, new Harlequin subfaction)
- Tau (ex: KV128 Stormsurge, XV95 Ghostkeel, Ethereal, Fire Warriors)
- Chaos demon (ex: Skarbrand, new Bloodthirster, new Tzeentch daemons, new Nurgle daemons, ...)
- Chaos Space Marines (ex: Dark Apostle, two subfactions, ...)
- Imperial Guard (ex: Techpriest Enginseer)
- Tyranids (ex: Broodlord, genestealer cult subfaction)
- Sisters of Battle (Veridian, Celestine)
- Inquisition (Inquisitor Greyfax)
- Genestealer cult (whole faction)
- Adeptus Mechanicus (whole faction)
- Custodes (whole faction)
- Sisters of Silence (whole faction)
- Assassins (whole faction)
- Knights (whole faction)
- Ynnari (whole faction)
- Harlequin (whole faction)

The only two factions that I see missing here are Dark Eldars (but to be honest they could use the models from two new subfactions, Ynnari and Harlequins), and Orks.
So of course before An Actual Englishman corrected me on the release date of the Gorknaut and co., I thought that this was irrefutable and definite proof that orks were really THE least popular army in the game, as evidenced by GW releases.
Thanks to his correction I know it's not the case, that's a relief.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What makes you think there are more IG, AdMech or Custodes players that Orks? Orks were second in popularity only to SM at one point.

Obviously if that wasn't the case, GW would be releasing codices and new models for Orks!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't begrudge Sisters new models, I disagree with those pigheaded people who try to claim that they are incredibly popular (just unloved by GW ) despite a metric gakton of evidence to the contrary.

Totally unlike Orks of course, which *really for realz* are popular, much more so than AdMech or Custodes but also *really for realz* are just unloved by GW, hence the later getting new models and codexes .

1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?

LVO top 100 had 3 sisters players, 5 ork players.

Also 1 deathwatch player, 1 necron player, 2 admech players, 2 space wolf players, and 2 dark angels players.

What this statistical evidence is telling me is that sisters are clearly more popular than all the above listed factions and therefore should be updated. Right? it couldn't have any relation to the competitiveness of the faction? there are just 20 times as many Eldar players as Necron players, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
New Mek, New Meganobz and Big Mek in Mega Armour, New SAG Big Mek, New Painboy, New Flashgitz, New Mork/Gorkanaut. You missed all them huh? Weird. There was a pretty big deal made of it. There might be more too, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm really sorry, I apparently used some pretty unreliable source to check date.
See, I wanted to check things out before I asked you, and the only source on release date that I could find was on this Warseer thread:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?297915-Games-Workshop-40K-Release-Timeline-(Mk-II)
Sadly it stopped at July 2016.
But it does list the new Mek at June 2014, the new Meganobz at July 2014, the new Big Mek in Mega Armour as July 2014, the new Shokk Attak Gun Big Mek as June 2014, the new Painboy as June 2014, the new Flashgitz as June 2014, the new Mork/Gorkanaut as June 2014.
Thanks for correcting me. Just out of curiosity though, as I am not 100% certain, are all those dates on Warseer wrong, or are Orks so popular that all those models got a second new release since then? And don't forget to contact Tymell on Warseer to help him correct the dates, or add in the date for the second version of all those models .

Anyway, pretty nice to see that Orks aren't actually so unpopular that they got zero new release in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, except for the Index. That was pretty sad, showed how noone was interested in playing them…


Where can I find some actual data about LVO? I somehow get this feeling that having access to those could lead to some pretty hilarious exchanges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I found one.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/02/40k-lvo-faction-breakdown.html
There was indeed more Necron players than Ork players. And the thing is: the numbers are massively skewed in Orks favor because it only takes the primary detachment faction into account, while Sisters are often taken as allies (see, Celestine).
It wasn't “just the top 100” either because the numbers add up to 382.
Wow.

Here's a question: How did 7 people make Eldar Corsairs armies?

Eldar Corsairs, unless I'm remembering wrong, physically cannot take any detachment and can only exist in pure "aeldari" detachments. They are 2 troop choices and 1 FA choice.

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's a question: How did 7 people make Eldar Corsairs armies?

Eldar Corsairs, unless I'm remembering wrong, physically cannot take any detachment and can only exist in pure "aeldari" detachments. They are 2 troop choices and 1 FA choice.

These are last year's LVO results. In 7th, corsairs had HQs. Sadly they lost most of their options (they actually only kept the ones for which FW sells conversion kits).

Basically, from the perspective of a T'au player, our viability ought to come down to stratagem. Tau have succeeded thus far in lore and on the tabletop through clever strategy and we'll executed manuvers. This is represented in 8th with stratagems. Coupled with a point decrease on heavy support so we can fill force charts without hamstringing ourselves, it would allow us to play in the manner envisioned. For example, we would be slightly less efficient in a points per wound ranking than the guard, so if we stood and shot like they would (the extent of their strategy) we should lose. But if we could employ stratagems that said, if we moved with our vehicles, we could fire at a stationary vehicle more effectively and had resistances against being shot, basically the strategy it would make sense to employ against a line of tanks. If the guard player failed to adapt and charged forward with his "strategy" of stand and shoot, we would win through a change in tactics. It'd be very tau like, reasonably strong to be able to adapt to your opponents, and make us a whole lot less of a one trick army that performs it's trick poorly.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Veridian is sold like once every 6 months (no joke, i had to wait 5 months for mine).

Indeed mine took some time to be able to purchase. Of course it might also help if GW could have been bothered to give her some rules in the Index, you know give us more than one HQ choice other than St C.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
New Mek, New Meganobz and Big Mek in Mega Armour, New SAG Big Mek, New Painboy, New Flashgitz, New Mork/Gorkanaut. You missed all them huh? Weird. There was a pretty big deal made of it. There might be more too, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm really sorry, I apparently used some pretty unreliable source to check date.
See, I wanted to check things out before I asked you, and the only source on release date that I could find was on this Warseer thread:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?297915-Games-Workshop-40K-Release-Timeline-(Mk-II)
Sadly it stopped at July 2016.
But it does list the new Mek at June 2014, the new Meganobz at July 2014, the new Big Mek in Mega Armour as July 2014, the new Shokk Attak Gun Big Mek as June 2014, the new Painboy as June 2014, the new Flashgitz as June 2014, the new Mork/Gorkanaut as June 2014.
Thanks for correcting me. Just out of curiosity though, as I am not 100% certain, are all those dates on Warseer wrong, or are Orks so popular that all those models got a second new release since then? And don't forget to contact Tymell on Warseer to help him correct the dates, or add in the date for the second version of all those models .

Anyway, pretty nice to see that Orks aren't actually so unpopular that they got zero new release in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, except for the Index. That was pretty sad, showed how noone was interested in playing them…


Where can I find some actual data about LVO? I somehow get this feeling that having access to those could lead to some pretty hilarious exchanges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I found one.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/02/40k-lvo-faction-breakdown.html
There was indeed more Necron players than Ork players. And the thing is: the numbers are massively skewed in Orks favor because it only takes the primary detachment faction into account, while Sisters are often taken as allies (see, Celestine).
It wasn't “just the top 100” either because the numbers add up to 382.
Wow.

Remind me how many new releases did Sisters get between 2014 and now?

We also had Mek Gunz by the way

Obviously Sisters are more popular though right, I mean, it's not like their entire range hasn't been updated apart from 3 models since the 90s. Oh, wait.

Are you honestly trying to argue that not seeing releases for the last 3 and a half years is the same as not seeing releases for over a decade?! Really?! Man this is a new level. I salute your blind ignorance to reason.

Why are you arguing a metric you suggested was completely unreliable to determine popularity? Seems pretty idiotic and pointless?

Edit - aaaand it's not even current data, it is outdated and from 7th when Orks were, unquestionably one of the least competitive armies in the game.

Edit 2 - those who are saying that we have no sales data to back up the argument are absolutely correct. We have no idea how many units of any model GW has sold. We have no idea if certain models or ranges are more profitable than others. The only thing, the only thing we have to inform our ideas of which factions are more popular than others are the actions of GW. We can assume that they follow the money. Look at which factions GW have invested in since the game was released and it should give you an idea about which are most popular. A very rough idea, but an idea based on logic and sense rather than emotion.

You do seem to be ignoring the increasingly circular logic that GW have applied.

Tunnel Vision
The vast majority of focus - rules, advertising, models is based around a single faction- Marines.

Strangely enough they sell more than other things - so GW increase the focus, and reduce resources spent on other factions and make more.............. Marines, focussing on them even more and weirdly enough some factions that are not even present in the store fail to sell.

Occasionally they make new models for other factions or even shock horror update an entire faction - Dark elder and weirdly they sell well, but then go back to Marines.

Sisters

St Celestine is very popular - great model, great rules, She sells very well. That is undeniable. Veridyan has no special rules and a finecast model, yet she regularly sells out and GW keep making more, GW Managers I spoke to said that management were shocked how well she sells - its just heresay but interesting.

Sisters currently have great rules BUT massively expensive models that can only be obtained via the main website, so not on the shelves or often the games tables - so much less chance of discount and less incentive for GW store owners to promote them.

"not" sisters models sell well for other companies.

I think simply dismissing them as something that would never sell ignores all of the above?

 Earth127 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So if you think Imperium players have it so much better, why don't you just switch to some Imperium army? It's going to be the last time you have to start a new army!

Because I don't like how you look?

Imperium players are never forced to start from scratch , not never start a new army.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but given how extreme the shifts can be for "Imperium" stuff?

Yeah, it might as well be starting from scratch. With 7th edition if I wanted to field my Guard, I was expected to also have Allied units like Knights, Inquisitors, whatever flavor of Marine was "in" that month, Priests, etc etc just to be competitive.

You claim that "Imperium players" are never forced to start from scratch--and hey, maybe that's true. But I don't know people who collect things strictly as "Imperium".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sisters currently have great rules BUT massively expensive models that can only be obtained via the main website, so not on the shelves or often the games tables - so much less chance of discount and less incentive for GW store owners to promote them.

They might not be on the shelves, but they are able to be ordered from GW shops themselves so the store managers are more than happy to promote them to you if you're actually interested in buying them.

More often than not though, they don't promote them because people piss and moan about metal or the prices of the models.

ERJAK wrote:


Dude can't accept he plays a faction that a lot of people like but no one plays.

Orkz were outnumbered MASSIVELY by Necrons at LVO and there's an absolutely 0% chance it was due to rules.

The hard fact is Orks don't get releases because there's no market for them and no one will buy them, even if a bunch of people say 'Oh, I love orkz i'd totally play them if they had better plastics, but then they come out and no one buys any. Just look at the wazzdakka jet thing.

Meanwhile Celestine and Veridian come out and sell MASSIVELY. Veridian sold out her production runs every 3 days for nearly 6 months.

Numbers don't lie, sorry AAE. An orc releases would be bad for the game and a massive mistake for GW as a company. If they really want to come out with kits that'll sell well, they should be coming out with SoB.

You're making a lot of assumptions there with pretty much no data at all.

An interesting note is that The Living Crusade(the non-deal battleforce they offer for Sisters) is Temporarily out of stock.

I guess the demand was so little that the models melted in the warehouse.

 Mr Morden wrote:
You do seem to be ignoring the increasingly circular logic that GW have applied.

Tunnel Vision
The vast majority of focus - rules, advertising, models is based around a single faction- Marines.

Strangely enough they sell more than other things - so GW increase the focus, and reduce resources spent on other factions and make more.............. Marines, focussing on them even more and weirdly enough some factions that are not even present in the store fail to sell.

Occasionally they make new models for other factions or even shock horror update an entire faction - Dark elder and weirdly they sell well, but then go back to Marines.

Sisters

St Celestine is very popular - great model, great rules, She sells very well. That is undeniable. Veridyan has no special rules and a finecast model, yet she regularly sells out and GW keep making more, GW Managers I spoke to said that management were shocked how well she sells - its just heresay but interesting.

Sisters currently have great rules BUT massively expensive models that can only be obtained via the main website, so not on the shelves or often the games tables - so much less chance of discount and less incentive for GW store owners to promote them.

"not" sisters models sell well for other companies.

I think simply dismissing them as something that would never sell ignores all of the above?

The circular logic is not applied by GW. It is a fallacy created by fans, such as all of us, to explain what is (unfortunately) cold, hard, business practice.

There is no focus on GW on anything except making money. They invest in lines that they believe will make them money. They may be wrong or misguided in their beliefs (about what will make money) but they certainly have more information than any of us here. I don't believe that Sisters are unpopular because I hate them, I honestly don't really care about them, I believe this because of the actions of GW. If they sold they would have been invested in. It's as simple as that.

Now we can argue until we're all blue in the face that GW creates demand for product lines by investing in them and promoting them. To some degree I agree with this too, but again we have nothing in the way of evidence to determine whether an investment has been successful, apart from the actions (again) of GW. I'd assume Knights were successful - they are getting investment in a new product (which is only one model, but for Knights is a big deal because their range is so limited), I'd also assume that Custodes were successful given their recent investment of an entire new line.

Let me make this clear too - I'm not saying anywhere that Sisters (or any other line) would never sell. I don't pretend to have all the information to make such a statement. I can assume based off past experience and the evidence I have at hand, but it is only that - an assumption/educated guess. I could and may well be wrong.

I think it should be fairly clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that Orks are probably more popular than Sisters. The same way we can be sure that marines are more popular than Orks. I'm not dissing Sisters or their players, I'm simply stating what I believe based on what I think is pretty solid logic.

I believe that it's not all bad news for Sisters actually. There is so much noise around them, always, GW almost have to listen. I believe the current Sisters bundle is a market intelligence gathering exercise, personally. I think GW are using it to assess the viability of Sisters. If you are a Sister's player and want new models, your best bet is to keep looking at that bundle, get your friends to look at it (I bet they are counting unique visits to the page) and keep buying models. Play them at their own game, show them there is a market for the product.

 Eldarsif wrote:
An interesting note is that The Living Crusade(the non-deal battleforce they offer for Sisters) is Temporarily out of stock.

I guess the demand was so little that the models melted in the warehouse.

Or perhaps they took it down because there was a pretty negative reaction to the lack of discount?

Cyclical argument is cyclical

 Eldarsif wrote:
An interesting note is that The Living Crusade(the non-deal battleforce they offer for Sisters) is Temporarily out of stock.

I guess the demand was so little that the models melted in the warehouse.

But... if 1 model is out, then all of it is.

Chicken and egg scenario. I would start collecting sisters in a heartbeat if they were plastic, and priced like plastic. $100 for 1 full squad of battle sisters is too much. I'd even be willing to operate as a more difficult white dwarf "codex" user. I don't have infinite expendable income for the hobby, but i do have some expendable income for the hobby.
I'd like to start an imperium army, I'd like for it to be sisters, but i have to be ok knowing i am spending 2-3x more to start that faction than the majority of others.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Chicken and egg scenario. I would start collecting sisters in a heartbeat if they were plastic, and priced like plastic. $100 for 1 full squad of battle sisters is too much. I'd even be willing to operate as a more difficult white dwarf "codex" user. I don't have infinite expendable income for the hobby, but i do have some expendable income for the hobby.
I'd like to start an imperium army, I'd like for it to be sisters, but i have to be ok knowing i am spending 2-3x more to start that faction than the majority of others.

No, this isn't the scenario at all. Don't believe all the lies, there was a time when (prepare yourself) all models were metal!!!!111one There was a time when Sisters' models were no more expensive than any other army. Now why do you think they weren't invested in, when every other line was?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Chicken and egg scenario. I would start collecting sisters in a heartbeat if they were plastic, and priced like plastic. $100 for 1 full squad of battle sisters is too much. I'd even be willing to operate as a more difficult white dwarf "codex" user. I don't have infinite expendable income for the hobby, but i do have some expendable income for the hobby.
I'd like to start an imperium army, I'd like for it to be sisters, but i have to be ok knowing i am spending 2-3x more to start that faction than the majority of others.

No, this isn't the scenario at all. Don't believe all the lies, there was a time when (prepare yourself) all models were metal!!!!111one There was a time when Sisters' models were no more expensive than any other army. Now why do you think they weren't invested in, when every other line was?

Because no one was on the team with the company to champion their development.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because no one was on the team with the company to champion their development.

I genuinely don't understand what this means?

Their development is championed by the respective expected money that GW believes it will make from the range.

I'm curious as to why this has become such a personal crusade for you, AAE.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Chicken and egg scenario. I would start collecting sisters in a heartbeat if they were plastic, and priced like plastic. $100 for 1 full squad of battle sisters is too much. I'd even be willing to operate as a more difficult white dwarf "codex" user. I don't have infinite expendable income for the hobby, but i do have some expendable income for the hobby.
I'd like to start an imperium army, I'd like for it to be sisters, but i have to be ok knowing i am spending 2-3x more to start that faction than the majority of others.

No, this isn't the scenario at all. Don't believe all the lies, there was a time when (prepare yourself) all models were metal!!!!111one There was a time when Sisters' models were no more expensive than any other army. Now why do you think they weren't invested in, when every other line was?

What actually shocked me was that they decided to price the miniatures on a per-model basis. When I was a kid, a Box of Grey Knights (5 metal models) was 45 bucks while a box of Sisters (10 metal models) was also 45 bucks. Repentia too (came in a box of 10). Plastic Terminators of the time were 60 bucks a box. The interesting thing is the blister pack of 3 SoBs didn't change. If anything the hiking of the prices is more likely due to GW (at the time) thinking they were losing money. Which I wouldn't put it past them since this was the Kirby Era.

One of my deepest regrets is not getting SoBs before.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because no one was on the team with the company to champion their development.

I genuinely don't understand what this means?

Their development is championed by the respective expected money that GW believes it will make from the range.

as someone who works in a company, there is one crucial thing that has to happen when a project is being evaluated: Someone on the team has to care about it.

Corporations chase money, yes, but they do so through myriad projects, which do not all have massive financial horsepower. The goal would be to improve the management and "sellability" of a given project so that it does become a significant source of financial horsepower. The only times this doesn't happen, in my experience, fall into two cases:
1) Either the project in question is written off as a failure
OR
2) No one cares about it.

In case 1), the project is terminated. My company (and most companies) will not produce a product in which there is no profit. Man hours and materials have better places to be. Since Sisters have not been updated but also not been terminated, then there is option 2): no one cares.

Now, all of this is only true if you take the "corporations only follow money" standpoint, which you seem to have adopted, AAE.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm curious as to why this has become such a personal crusade for you, AAE.

It's not a personal crusade by any stretch, I like having interesting discussions around topics related to the hobby. The thing with this particular topic is that there is this bizarre fallacy that Sisters are and have always been, some hidden goldmine that GW doesn't know about or doesn't respect, or doesn't love or whatever. I mean, they might be more popular now given the changing dynamic of the market in recent times, but historically there can be no dispute that they weren't the most popular and likely were the least (except for Squats, obviously).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I'd like to start an imperium army, I'd like for it to be sisters, but i have to be ok knowing i am spending 2-3x more to start that faction than the majority of others.

No, this isn't the scenario at all. Don't believe all the lies, there was a time when (prepare yourself) all models were metal!!!!111one There was a time when Sisters' models were no more expensive than any other army. Now why do you think they weren't invested in, when every other line was?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because no one was on the team with the company to champion their development.

I genuinely don't understand what this means?

Their development is championed by the respective expected money that GW believes it will make from the range.

as someone who works in a company, there is one crucial thing that has to happen when a project is being evaluated: Someone on the team has to care about it.

Corporations chase money, yes, but they do so through myriad projects, which do not all have massive financial horsepower. The goal would be to improve the management and "sellability" of a given project so that it does become a significant source of financial horsepower. The only times this doesn't happen, in my experience, fall into two cases:
1) Either the project in question is written off as a failure
OR
2) No one cares about it.

In case 1), the project is terminated. My company (and most companies) will not produce a product in which there is no profit. Man hours and materials have better places to be. Since Sisters have not been updated but also not been terminated, then there is option 2): no one cares.

Now, all of this is only true if you take the "corporations only follow money" standpoint, which you seem to have adopted, AAE.

Right so if not one single person in a company that created Warhammer 40k cares about Sisters, what does that tell you about their popularity? Aren't you proving my point?

Squats where Squated by copyright issues just like MALAL the fifth God of Chaos.

And Unit1226PLL is right. GW works very much by what the guys in the studio like. Read any interview with their past designers.

Zoats. Do you know Zoats? The centaur like aliens that were devoured by Tyranids? They were designed by a directive guy. Everyone hated how they look, but they maked them just because that directive guy wanted to push his own race.

Marketing, etc... can enforce designers to work in something if its a gold mine (Like Custodes). But if no one really cares about a faction, then no one will champion about it.
Alan Blight for example, was the guy that make HH happen. If not for him, I doubt HH would have become the big thing it did become.

And AAE, I wouldn't be so fast to say that SoB aren't popular because nobody in the studio care about them. Do you know what other faction nobody care about in the studio? Orks. Thats why they have had so bad rules all this past editions.