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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 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).

And harlequins, and Zoats, and genestealer cult, and arbites, and necromunda, and blood bowl, and admech, and BFG, and all the other side/flavor armies that were dropped by GW in the middle editions of the game while the sisters line remained in print, mentioned occasionally in fluff, and given rules updates.

The argument here is not that sisters WERE a hidden/unexploited gold mine for GW, but that they currently are now given the success of so many other throwback projects theyve undertaken recently (they even brought the freaking squats back in all but name for AOS).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 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?

It's not just one person in the company. It's gotta be one of the games designers, which are like 6 people in the case of 40k. So unless your point was "Games Workshop's 40k Games Designers aren't enthusiastic about Sisters.", then I don't see how it helps.

I thought your point was that they couldn't make any money by releasing plastic sisters. If that is, in fact, your point, then no, this doesn't help that at all.

 Galas wrote:
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.

Squats were squatted because they weren't popular. If GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races?

GW might work "very much by what the guys in the studio like", but make no mistake their directive is also (and I would suggest more) driven by money.

I didn't say "SoB aren't popular because nobody in the studio cares about them". My claim is that all reasonable evidence, including their popularity within the studio, including the fact that they haven't been updated in years, including all available evidence to us indicates that they aren't popular. I agree Orks don't have a champion in the studio. But I believe there are plenty of players. Which is why we get support with new models.

And I disagree with your claim, because you have provided zero evidence to back it up.

I would, however, agree with the far more limited claim: "SoB aren't cared about by the studio enough to update them."

And yeah, sure, you get support with new models. So do SoB, obviously, unless you think Canoness Veridyan and St. Celestine don't count for some unfathomable reason.

Ynnari's soulburst mechanic is very jarring - but interesting all the same. I'm glad it got toned down, I'd like to see them fix some other shenanigans with craft world strategems and whatnot being mixed in.

The only Ynnari I have tried was a gak ton of reaver jetbikes and the yncarn proxy model (because I hate the actual model). It was funny and gun, with reavers being so overcosted but still speedy enough to enjoy all the shenanigans.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

Squats were squatted because they weren't popular. If GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races?

GW might work "very much by what the guys in the studio like", but make no mistake their directive is also (and I would suggest more) driven by money.

I didn't say "SoB aren't popular because nobody in the studio cares about them". My claim is that all reasonable evidence, including their popularity within the studio, including the fact that they haven't been updated in years, including all available evidence to us indicates that they aren't popular. I agree Orks don't have a champion in the studio. But I believe there are plenty of players. Which is why we get support with new models.

As the time of being squatted, they where as popular as Imperial Guard and Space Marines. The guy in the studio that did the Squats was the one that did Malal, and the concept of those both entities in the warhammer universe was of him, not GW, just as the copyright. Thats why since then everything GW's staff does, its copyrighted under GW umbrella.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Remind me how many new releases did Sisters get between 2014 and now?

Same as between 2015 and now.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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?!

I'm sorry, are we evaluating popularity now, or ten years ago?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

So Orks are literally the least popular, lately.
By your own metrics.
But suddenly that logic don't apply when it shows Ork are not popular because, whatever magic glasses you are wearing.
I call that "your blind ignorance to reason".

Keep pushing about how Sisters were not popular during 2nd edition when most of us didn't play 40k, because the GW of that time (which was WAAAAAAAAY less corporate) didn't invest in them. That only tells us about their popularity then, not their popularity now. Now they are getting more releases than Orks and that is a literal fact.

Can we agree that all old miniatures would sell some if they got redone in new plastic models?(Including ork buggies, finecast aspect warriors, that one BA character, and SoB troops). I think that individually updating one or two old kits for each army over the course of the year would be a safe move for GW. Maybe this year isn’t a good year to remake all of the armies, especially since we’re getting new Custodes and a ton of codices, but a few models like the Cryptek to be released regularly could go a long way towards keeping everything current without addressing the popularity of armies.

If it was done in plastic and decently priced*. I would rather shell out 50 bucks (and did) for 10 of the old metal Kasrkins than 84 for 10 of the new scions.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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?!

I'm sorry, are we evaluating popularity now, or ten years ago?

Hmm maybe there's a link between one and the other? Maybe popularity now is directly linked to popularity ten or even twenty years ago?! Both.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

So Orks are literally the least popular, lately.
By your own metrics.
But suddenly that logic don't apply when it shows Ork are not popular because, whatever magic glasses you are wearing.
I call that "your blind ignorance to reason".

No? Because we had MASSIVE MODEL RELEASES AND SUPPORT LESS THAN 5 YEARS AGO.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Keep pushing about how Sisters were not popular during 2nd edition when most of us didn't play 40k, because the GW of that time (which was WAAAAAAAAY less corporate) didn't invest in them. That only tells us about their popularity then, not their popularity now. Now they are getting more releases than Orks and that is a literal fact.

No it is not a "literal fact". It is a garbage fallacy cooked up by a salty person online. The fact is that Sisters have had Celestine, Geminae and Veridian and Orks have had A METRIC TON MORE models in the last 4 years. Your dubious selection of a date post 2014 is not only blatantly obvious but also massively telling that you have no sensible argument.

I guess when all logic fails.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And I disagree with your claim, because you have provided zero evidence to back it up.

I would, however, agree with the far more limited claim: "SoB aren't cared about by the studio enough to update them."

And yeah, sure, you get support with new models. So do SoB, obviously, unless you think Canoness Veridyan and St. Celestine don't count for some unfathomable reason.

3 models is the same level of support as the massive range that I mentioned earlier for Orks? Really?

I told you earlier I don't have any evidence, only reasoned assumptions based on logic and some fact (the actions of GW).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If it was done in plastic and decently priced*. I would rather shell out 50 bucks (and did) for 10 of the old metal Kasrkins than 84 for 10 of the new scions.

Old Kasrkin were some of the best IG sculpts ever made. The new stuff is junk in comparison.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If it was done in plastic and decently priced*. I would rather shell out 50 bucks (and did) for 10 of the old metal Kasrkins than 84 for 10 of the new scions.

Old Kasrkin were some of the best IG sculpts ever made. The new stuff is junk in comparison.

I would dare say that if Vostroyans didn't exist, they would be the undisputed best IG models ever made. Even better than the valk or (dare I say) baneblade.

 Galas wrote:
As the time of being squatted, they where as popular as Imperial Guard and Space Marines. The guy in the studio that did the Squats was the one that did Malal, and the concept of those both entities in the warhammer universe was of him, not GW, just as the copyright. Thats why since then everything GW's staff does, its copyrighted under GW umbrella.

Not convinced that they were as popular as Space Marines or IG. Source?
Again - if GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races? If they were so popular why didn't GW do this?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As the time of being squatted, they where as popular as Imperial Guard and Space Marines. The guy in the studio that did the Squats was the one that did Malal, and the concept of those both entities in the warhammer universe was of him, not GW, just as the copyright. Thats why since then everything GW's staff does, its copyrighted under GW umbrella.

Not convinced that they were as popular as Space Marines or IG. Source?
Again - if GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races? If they were so popular why didn't GW do this?

Thats not... how copyright works.

And, Jervis Johnson, in a post in 2004 about why Squats where Squatted.

"I know I shouldn't get drawn on this... but... can't... resist

Seriously, a couple of points just so you can have an informed debate based on the real reasons that Squats are no longer available. Be warned, it is going to be hard reading for people that like the Squat background.

First of all, Squats were *not* dropped because they were not selling well. There were then, and are now, plenty of other figure ranges that sell in the sort of % quantaties that the Squats pulled down, especially when you look across all of the ranges produced by GW rather than just those for 40K.

 Galas wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As the time of being squatted, they where as popular as Imperial Guard and Space Marines. The guy in the studio that did the Squats was the one that did Malal, and the concept of those both entities in the warhammer universe was of him, not GW, just as the copyright. Thats why since then everything GW's staff does, its copyrighted under GW umbrella.

Not convinced that they were as popular as Space Marines or IG. Source?
Again - if GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races? If they were so popular why didn't GW do this?

Thats not... how copyright works.

And, Jervis Johnson, in a post in 2004 about why Squats where Squatted.

Spoiler:

"I know I shouldn't get drawn on this... but... can't... resist

Seriously, a couple of points just so you can have an informed debate based on the real reasons that Squats are no longer available. Be warned, it is going to be hard reading for people that like the Squat background.

First of all, Squats were *not* dropped because they were not selling well. There were then, and are now, plenty of other figure ranges that sell in the sort of % quantaties that the Squats pulled down, especially when you look across all of the ranges produced by GW rather than just those for 40K.

Nowhere does it mention sales relative to SM or IG?

It's exactly how copyright works, GW have literally just done the exact thing in AOS with Orruks, Aelves etc etc etc

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As the time of being squatted, they where as popular as Imperial Guard and Space Marines. The guy in the studio that did the Squats was the one that did Malal, and the concept of those both entities in the warhammer universe was of him, not GW, just as the copyright. Thats why since then everything GW's staff does, its copyrighted under GW umbrella.

Not convinced that they were as popular as Space Marines or IG. Source?
Again - if GW wanted to keep them you don't think they'd have changed the name to get around copyright issues? Call them Squits or something? Like they have with fantasy races? If they were so popular why didn't GW do this?

Thats not... how copyright works.

And, Jervis Johnson, in a post in 2004 about why Squats where Squatted.

Spoiler:

"I know I shouldn't get drawn on this... but... can't... resist

Seriously, a couple of points just so you can have an informed debate based on the real reasons that Squats are no longer available. Be warned, it is going to be hard reading for people that like the Squat background.

First of all, Squats were *not* dropped because they were not selling well. There were then, and are now, plenty of other figure ranges that sell in the sort of % quantaties that the Squats pulled down, especially when you look across all of the ranges produced by GW rather than just those for 40K.

Nowhere does it mention sales relative to SM or IG?

It's exactly how copyright works, GW have literally just done the exact thing in AOS with Orruks, Aelves etc etc etc

Copyright can also include design, likeness, merchandising etc. If they had only changed the name, they would be at risk of being sued, so they wouldn't either way if they didn't have the rights to the design and likeness of the faction, and had only lost the rights to the names.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Maybe popularity now is directly linked to popularity ten or even twenty years ago?!

Then how do you explain stuff like Cult Genestealers being completely discontinued and then entirely revived as a plastic line?
Where they discontinued despite being popular then, or where they revived despite not being popular now, or what's your deal on this?
You can't logic that out, right?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
No? Because we had MASSIVE MODEL RELEASES AND SUPPORT LESS THAN 5 YEARS AGO.

AND THEN WERE NEGLECTED UNTIL LITERALLY EVERY OTHER FACTION GOT SOMETHING NEW! NOT ONE FACTION, NOT TWO FACTIONS, NOT ALL MAJOR FACTIONS, LITERALLY ALL FACTIONS! MANY OF THOSE FACTIONS DIDN'T EVEN EXISTS BEFORE THE LAST ORK RELEASE!
I can play game of caps lock just as well as you do.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Your dubious selection of a date post 2014 is not only blatantly obvious but also massively telling that you have no sensible argument.

Sorry we started this with post 8th edition but that was not good enough for you, you said too short time period. I just went back in time until literally all other factions had some release and I found no ork releases in the meantime, that's all. But we can look at just from 2016 to now if you want.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I told you earlier I don't have any evidence, only reasoned assumptions based on logic and some fact (the actions of GW).

And as I told you earlier the facts (the actions of GW) support Orks being the least popular faction of 40k at the moment, since every other factions got something first and multiple factions go several waves of release.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's exactly how copyright works, GW have literally just done the exact thing in AOS with Orruks, Aelves etc etc etc

So what you are saying is that GW has renamed the Orcs and Elves of AoS because they feared that someone else, who holds the copyright of Orcs and Elves, was going to sue them?

It's an entirely different to change name so that you can copyright something and to change name so you can avoid being sued for copyright infringement.
That, along with the many other factual errors you made (about Celestine being released with a Primarch, about the date of Ork releases, …) is making it harder and harder to take you seriously.
It's okay to be wrong, nobody's perfect.
It's not okay to condescendingly and smugly contradict others when you are wrong.
Stop being so emotional, and please look rationally at the facts. Don't be afraid to check them rather than guess them too!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I would dare say that if Vostroyans didn't exist, they would be the undisputed best IG models ever made. Even better than the valk or (dare I say) baneblade.

B-but what about the Attilan Riders? Surely those were the best IG models ever made!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Then how do you explain stuff like Cult Genestealers being completely discontinued and then entirely revived as a plastic line?
Where they discontinued despite being popular then, or where they revived despite not being popular now, or what's your deal on this?
You can't logic that out, right?

Yea I can. It's quite simple actually, even a child could provide you with an answer. GW is taking a risk. They believe the market has changed and GSC are now viable as a stand alone product.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
AND THEN WERE NEGLECTED UNTIL LITERALLY EVERY OTHER FACTION GOT SOMETHING NEW! NOT ONE FACTION, NOT TWO FACTIONS, NOT ALL MAJOR FACTIONS, LITERALLY ALL FACTIONS! MANY OF THOSE FACTIONS DIDN'T EVEN EXISTS BEFORE THE LAST ORK RELEASE!
I can play game of caps lock just as well as you do.

And what does this prove? I'd rather have the ton of models we got in 2014 over the 1 or 2 models other factions got after. You are measuring popularity literally by how recent the last release for a faction is? Are you really that simple? Incredible.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sorry we started this with post 8th edition but that was not good enough for you, you said too short time period. I just went back in time until literally all other factions had some release and I found no ork releases in the meantime, that's all. But we can look at just from 2016 to now if you want.

No, you picked a very specific date to suit your (incredibly weak) argument. Nice try. Then you try to claim that a single Inquisitor model is somehow better than a heavy support, and 5 or 6 elite releases. OK then. If your argument is "Orks haven't had a release since 2014 lololol but every other faction has had something your argument is garbage.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And as I told you earlier the facts (the actions of GW) support Orks being the least popular faction of 40k at the moment, since every other factions got something first and multiple factions go several waves of release.

Wrong, again :( For a start other factions didn't get anything "first", they got things "more recently". Tell me how many factions had more models than the Orks received in 2014? That might help you with your (lack of) reasoning. Why don't we look at the total number of Ork releases since 40k was released and compare it to another faction to see if that helps you with your bizarre lack of logic?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So what you are saying is that GW has renamed the Orcs and Elves of AoS because they feared that someone else, who holds the copyright of Orcs and Elves, was going to sue them?

It's an entirely different to change name so that you can copyright something and to change name so you can avoid being sued for copyright infringement.

No? There you go with your wild assumptions again. They renamed them to protect their own assets, I presume.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That, along with the many other factual errors you made (about Celestine being released with a Primarch, about the date of Ork releases, …) is making it harder and harder to take you seriously.
It's okay to be wrong, nobody's perfect.
It's not okay to condescendingly and smugly contradict others when you are wrong.
Stop being so emotional, and please look rationally at the facts. Don't be afraid to check them rather than guess them too!

Irony, thy name is Oxayotl. Glad to see you return to strawmanning though, it really highlights that you have no coherent or viable argument.

I just notice that the topic of this thread was the three army books announced at LVO, Dark Eldar, Tau, and Necrons. Neither Orks nor Sister of Battle are on that list.

If I remember correctly the Squats were...well Squatted.... not because of low sales or a lack of push by the company. It was simply because they, at the time, wanted to push 40k in a more grim and serious direction and little dorfs on bikes with flashy guns didn't have much room for them to go for. The whole "they weren't selling well" was a rumor that cropped up on the boards that just refused to die, mainly because GW was rather ashamed of getting rid of the squats, but for a completely different reason and was misconstrued as the sales being low. The main push for it to be more "serious" was because of the constant joke that 40k was "Warhammer IN SPACE" and they started trimming the fat from things that were a little too on the nose about it.

 EnTyme wrote:
I just notice that the topic of this thread was the three army books announced at LVO, Dark Eldar, Tau, and Necrons. Neither Orks nor Sister of Battle are on that list.

Shhh. you're ruining the spectacle

 EnTyme wrote:
I just notice that the topic of this thread was the three army books announced at LVO, Dark Eldar, Tau, and Necrons. Neither Orks nor Sister of Battle are on that list.

And Squats. Don't forget squats.

 EnTyme wrote:
I just notice that the topic of this thread was the three army books announced at LVO, Dark Eldar, Tau, and Necrons. Neither Orks nor Sister of Battle are on that list.

A relevant observation! Please let's keep the conversation to the announced codices/releases. Threads on what SHOULD have been announced (ahem, no bias here, no sir) can be its own topic in 40k General Discussion. Many thanks!

fe40k wrote:
If every faction got the same love Space Marines had; there'd be a separate codex for each Craftworld/Klan/Hive Fleet/Regiment/other sub-faction.

But instead, there's a single codex for each of these non-SM releases. Is it too much to ask for each other faction to get the same amount of love?

Also, Orks are popular, you gitz.

Only a non-boy would even think about arguing otherwise.

Except for the Salamanders
And Raven Guard
And Imperial fists
And the lost and damned
._.

 kastelen wrote:
And the lost and damned

I think you meant the legion of the damned because the Lost and the damned is the name for the non-marine mortal chaos faction (and they deserve to be more fleshed out, there is so much more to chaos than just marines and daemons).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 kastelen wrote:
And the lost and damned

I think you meant the legion of the damned because the Lost and the damned is the name for the non-marine mortal chaos faction (and they deserve to be more fleshed out, there is so much more to chaos than just marines and daemons).

Yep, my mistake.

 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?

THose metals have been keeping going up and you know just because people bought metal when there wasn't option for better doesn't mean they buy when there are.

You also assume sells=automatically new releases which is false. While common GW kills entire lines even when they outsells their own exceptations by 400% after green lighting them in the first place. There's tons of reasons. Like nobody in studio having much interest.

And certainly it's hard line to sell when GW makes it very hard for players to buy with metal, incomplete line at ridiculously high prices with less than stellar rules. They are designed to not sell so not selling much is hardly proof new SoB wouldn't sell.

More on topic, I'm really eager to see what they're going to do with DE's subfactions.
It seems obvious that there will be kabal traits that give a bonus to each unit from this kabal (just like any other codex). But then, what happens when you mix your kabalite units with wych cult units? At the very least, I suppose adding non-kabalite units (that are still Drukhari) won't prevent you from getting your kabal's trait. And similarly, there will be wych cult and covens traits.
But will a mixed kabalite/wych cult detachment be able to benefit from both a kabalite and a wych cult traits, or only one of the two will apply? That's going to affect army composition quite a lot.

fresus wrote:
More on topic, I'm really eager to see what they're going to do with DE's subfactions.
It seems obvious that there will be kabal traits that give a bonus to each unit from this kabal (just like any other codex). But then, what happens when you mix your kabalite units with wych cult units? At the very least, I suppose adding non-kabalite units (that are still Drukhari) won't prevent you from getting your kabal's trait. And similarly, there will be wych cult and covens traits.
But will a mixed kabalite/wych cult detachment be able to benefit from both a kabalite and a wych cult traits, or only one of the two will apply? That's going to affect army composition quite a lot.

Based on how it operates for the other factions I'd have guessed that they'll do one of three things;

1. Kabals, Wych Cults and Haemonculus Covens will all have their own subfaction trait. This would mean that a mixed Kabal/Wych Cult would invalidate the trait and a detachment would have to be pure Kabal, Wych Cult or whatever to benefit from it. If this is the case I reckon there'll be 2 Kabals, 2 Wych Cults and 2 Covens to pick from, maybe 3 at a push.
2. Units will be able to take Wych Cult x or Coven x regardless of their type. In other words non-Wych units could take a Wych Cult sub faction keyword.
3. There will be overarching Sub Factions that span over Kabals, Wych Cults and Covens so there's no problem mixing and matching units from either to get the benefit.

fresus wrote:
More on topic, I'm really eager to see what they're going to do with DE's subfactions.
It seems obvious that there will be kabal traits that give a bonus to each unit from this kabal (just like any other codex). But then, what happens when you mix your kabalite units with wych cult units? At the very least, I suppose adding non-kabalite units (that are still Drukhari) won't prevent you from getting your kabal's trait. And similarly, there will be wych cult and covens traits.
But will a mixed kabalite/wych cult detachment be able to benefit from both a kabalite and a wych cult traits, or only one of the two will apply? That's going to affect army composition quite a lot.

I do hope they don't split Drukhari too much up as I do enjoy having a mixed army.

Sadly I doubt we'll see a plastic release with the Drukhari which means we still won't get plastic Grotesques. Seriously, it would do so much for Drukhari Covens if those things were plastic.

Also, I really hope they address the cost of reaver jetbikes.