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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.

You're in opposition to GW on that one lol

Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.

Strats are problematic in that they aren't Strategic. Certain ones are, sure, but then we get straight up offensive and defensive ones that require less than a thought to use. Then we got ones that make no sense because just one Space Wolves squad figured out they could shoot their Bolters in melee or just one Dreadnought realized "Hey I can lower damage going at me!"

 Insectum7 wrote:
I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:

Spoiler:

Not gonna lie, I miss those goofy looking buggers. I get why they were redesigned, but I much prefer them to the new ones simply because of the size, and little else.

 Genoside07 wrote:
We...don't have a clue what is going on with kill team.

I think we do. We just don't want to really acknowledge it. Kill Team is complete. There's nothing else coming for the current version. We might get another version released in 2 or 3 years.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:

Spoiler:

Not gonna lie, I miss those goofy looking buggers. I get why they were redesigned, but I much prefer them to the new ones simply because of the size, and little else.

Hehehehehehehehe:

It's true though, the newer ones are disappointingly small in comparison. The design is pretty nice though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Yeah, Carnifexes etc. being kinda lacklustre in CC is pretty brutal.

I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:

Spoiler:

Remember, Carnifex used to have the same to-hit as marines, but it was nerfed to sell newer models.

Nid players are still suffering from that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.

You're in opposition to GW on that one lol

Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.

I mean that GW doesn't want a game with a skill curve that rewards smart play. They want a game that rewards purchases.

Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.

The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.

 insaniak wrote:
Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.

The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.

Not sure I necessarily agree. As an example, I think the Knight Castellan model is ugly as sin, in comparison to the original Imperial Knight model, but even I was tempted to get one when it came out due to its rules and low points cost at the time (I fortunately fought off the urge). When I attended NOVA in 2018, that recently-released model seemed to be on nearly every game table, and I don't think it was due to its looks.

Vice versa, I think some of the recently-released Eldar plastic models look great (ex. new Banshees, Jain Zar), but the rules for most of them are crap. I haven't seen anyone running the new Banshee models, despite how good they look. If Banshees had good rules these days, I think GW would have sold a lot more of those Blood of the Phoenix boxes.

While GW may not be consistent in its approach to selling specific models, I am a believer that certain (not all) targeted releases are accompanied by "OP" rules or initially lower points costs in order to sell models.

Oof, that OP hurt to read.

 insaniak wrote:
Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.

They certainly do add new options to existing units when they get an updated kit though.

That's honestly more insidious than nerfing an old unit in favour of a new one.

Does anyone think we will get a unified boltgun profile someday, like when 3rd Ed 40k made all power weapons the same?

Inevitably, some armies did get +1 Strength power weapons, or other special addons.

Is it a meme or do people really have a problem with remembering that every primaris class models can or will be able to run a standard weapon, a hvy version of a weapon and a multi shot assault version of a weapon the squad carries.

Maybe it is because we don't speak english here, and don't use the GW names anyway, but it is really not that hard to remember that, plus most armies are locked in to specific bolters types anyway. There aren't going to be many heavy hellblasters and sniper boltguns in White Scar army, auto bolt rifles on the other hand are a given thing.

 insaniak wrote:
Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.

The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.

That is so wrong on so many levels.

You can have multiple exemples, like Hotness of the month, cue castellan, etc.
You can have exemples like R&H with IA13 that went from basically inexistent ATLEAST partially not selling because the rules were 3 editions behind.

Both are parade exemples why that never is nonsense.

Rules also have massive impact on maintaining a playerbase of a faction, cue Eldar remaining very long a rather popular xeno faction despite one of the oldest model range.

Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.

Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.

 insaniak wrote:
Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.

The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.

People have absolutely bought models for rules. I've bought models for rules. I wouldn't say there's a 1 to 1 ratio and GW only uses rules to sell models, but it's crazy to think rules haven't sold models. I didn't see loyal 32s because people were suddenly into the aesthetics of Guard Infantry in 8th, and I didn't see armies of Warp Spiders in 7th because Eldar players just suddenly found a new fondness for 20 year old models.

I didn't buy another two Attack Bikes in 8th because I love the model. I bought them because their points value dropped and I wanted to build a Brigade. I didn't buy four Librarians in 7th because I loved the models, I bought them to field a Librarius Conclave. I didn't buy Combi-Plasmas for my Sternguard in 6th because I loved Combi-Plasmas. And I didn't buy Drop Pods in 5th because I really wanted to paint Drop Pods.

I won't buy models I actively dislike for their rules alone. But I absolutely buy models for their usefulness on the table.

See my post just above yours.

I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.

 insaniak wrote:
See my post just above yours.

I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.

Gw tries sometime, is atleast verified with the intervention that got known on the wraithknight.

You ingoring that doesn't change that.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.

Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.

Yes and no. In general I buy models I like, but in most cases, I shy away from units with terrible rules. They just cost too much money and I hate painting too much to invest all that into a unit which will fall flat on its face in games. Let's take the silly new DG teapot that is going to be released soon - I like the model, but if it ends up being yet another mek workshop, I won't be buying it.

A model really has to be above and beyond awesome for me to buy it despite having terrible rules *stares at squigbuggy*.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.

It's the driving force behind player retention. When your army sucks so hard that you have not a fair shot at winning then even if you are casual you start getting disapointed and either shelf the army or stop playing.
Also i wasn't the one made the absolute statement. You made that by claiming that never happened in 40k . A general statement on the basis of never is allways absolute.

Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.

Meta chasing addmitedly happens more in comp scenes, i have been in both, but it doesn't change that the imbalance that gw creates HAS an impact on the casual scene aswell.

The problem with Nids is that Robin Cruddace is in charge of the rules and he hates Nids because his IG got destroyed by them in 5th. Anyone remember that the 6th Ed book got so much flack that the 7th Ed book was the first codex ever authored by "the rules team" instead of an individual? Now he seems to be in charge of the rules overall and hes the most dull, uninspiring rules writer GW have.

Honestly I think it's a mix of both, people buy units that they think look cool, and units that they think are effective, obvious from GW's POV the "gold ideal" would be one that looks great and you want to take for the game. the humble intercessor IMHO falls into this, it's both the best looking and best performing troop option marines have at the moment. I mean I'ver certainly bought units for rules, and shy'd away from stuff that wasn't any good. at the same time, if it looks great I might buy it anyway to toss in the display case.

 Arschbombe wrote:
I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.

With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.

I don't know why GW don't just squat 40k and 30k and reboot the latter with it's GI Joe style modern 40k visuals because fankly I'd not be shocked if there's a few voices on the sales team telling them that's exactly what they should do - AoS-style but in reverse. Handwave the loss of NPC- I mean, Xenos/Chaos ranges as getting in the way of MORE SPACE Marines, as those who spend money on said NPCs will just invest their money into Space Marines when they're the only option left to them - what're they going to do, go and play a different company's game? Bwahahahahaha, as if.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:
Okay, Space Marines have too many units, zero debate there. The other issue is that they have SEVERE bloat in terms of datasheet that could be wargear options. I mean, a Captain, a Captain in Terminator armor, and a Captain on a bike were 3 different datasheet.

But the thing is, I only have one datasheet for my canonness because she doesn't have access to a better armor, and she doesn't have access to a bike. It's not marine units being more artificially separated into different datasheet than other armies. It's them having more options.

Its both. SM Characters used to be one datasheet (each), and Terminator/Jump Pack/Bike etc used to a May take one of wargear option. Then Terminators got a different stat-line, so they got a separate data sheet. Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.

With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.

I don't know why GW don't just squat 40k and 30k and reboot the latter with it's GI Joe style modern 40k visuals because fankly I'd not be shocked if there's a few voices on the sales team telling them that's exactly what they should do - AoS-style but in reverse. Handwave the loss of NPC- I mean, Xenos/Chaos ranges as getting in the way of MORE SPACE Marines, as those who spend money on said NPCs will just invest their money into Space Marines when they're the only option left to them - what're they going to do, go and play a different company's game? Bwahahahahaha, as if.

I wish they'd just got with a few years of starter sets without Marines. If they want to do something like Shadowspear for the still missing units fine, but run some starter sets with IG vs, or both non-imperium.

part of that I think is the idea that it makes it easier to know what a marine on a bike ahs etc.

it also allows GW to make sure that no strange wording error allows a space marine captain to take terminator armor, a jump pack AND an assault canon

BrianDavion wrote:
part of that I think is the idea that it makes it easier to know what a marine on a bike ahs etc.

it also allows GW to make sure that no strange wording error allows a space marine captain to take terminator armor, a jump pack AND an assault canon

Your theory is that GW broke single entries into many, many entries to try idiotproof for their awful rules team?

 =Angel= wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of that I think is the idea that it makes it easier to know what a marine on a bike ahs etc.

it also allows GW to make sure that no strange wording error allows a space marine captain to take terminator armor, a jump pack AND an assault canon

Your theory is that GW broke single entries into many, many entries to try idiotproof for their awful rules team?

I think it's more that they're tying rules to specific SKU's/models as opposed to roles, and it has the effect of making wargear mixups less of a problem when each iteration can only have what's in the box, but does bloat the number of unit entries.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with Nids is that Robin Cruddace is in charge of the rules and he hates Nids because his IG got destroyed by them in 5th. Anyone remember that the 6th Ed book got so much flack that the 7th Ed book was the first codex ever authored by "the rules team" instead of an individual? Now he seems to be in charge of the rules overall and hes the most dull, uninspiring rules writer GW have.

O_o He wrote the codex books for both IG and Tyranids in 5E, and playing through that edition I'd say the Guard were in a notably more capable position than the Tyranids were generally. There's lots of room to criticize Cruddace, but I don't think there's anything going on between IG and Tyranids specifically there.

 insaniak wrote:
See my post just above yours.

I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.

Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.

And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.

The weird thing to me personally is how it always feels like, whenever GW comes out with one of those "army vs army boxed sets" it seems like GW just...doesn't...ever play out the game to make sure it makes for a good game.

I've seen a few people playing out the indomitus box, and it's just like the other box set games I've seen: completely, utterly one-sided. The necrons stand aaabsolutely no chance using the rules that come in the box.

And it's been the same with every one of these box sets, the winner is already pre-decided practically:

Shadowspear: Chaos Space Marines always win
Dark Imperium: Space Marines always win
Prophecy of the Wolf: Orks always win.
Blood of the Pheonix: Nobody ever wins, because not one single human being bought the box
Dark Vengeance (good lord these sets sound like an avenged sevenfold album): Space Marines always win
Assault on Black Reach: Space Marines always win

The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.

Like, especially with the "new edition" launch boxes, where every mini inside is a brand new sculpt, like DV or DI or Indomitus...what stops you from specifically going out of your way to ensure the game is a balanced matchup? You're literally designing every rule and model from the ground. Most of the time they end up being like 350 points on 600 points or something dumb like that.

the_scotsman wrote:

The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.

LOL omg I remember that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.

Yes, I did. And then when people misinterpreted that, I explained what I meant by it. So I'm not sure what's to be gained by continuing to argue that a point I wasn't making was wrong. Chalk it up to English being a stupid language, and move on.

And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.

It would... but when it's as seemingly random as it is, it makes it seem rather unlikely. Like saying 'It always rains on Thursdays', and holding up the fact that it sometimes rains on Thursdays as proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable. .

Ah, but that was mitigated by the fact that you couldn't actually assemble the landspeeder, on account of its horribly warped chassis.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.

Yes, I did. And then when people misinterpreted that, I explained what I meant by it. So I'm not sure what's to be gained by continuing to argue that a point I wasn't making was wrong. Chalk it up to English being a stupid language, and move on.

The explanation didn't make sense. It appears to read "people don't buy models for the rules except in circumstances when they do" (in more competitive metas) Which, in my experience, has been basically every meta I've played in for 20+ years.

 insaniak wrote:

And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.

It would... but when it's as seemingly random as it is, it makes it seem rather unlikely. Like saying 'It always rains on Thursdays', and holding up the fact that it sometimes rains on Thursdays as proof.

Ah. The difference is that I'm not saying they "always" do that. I'm saying they could definitely do that from time to time, and it would be an easy and tempting thing to do.