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.

 CEO Kasen wrote:


"Due to balance changes, Specialist detachments Doctrines are no longer tournament legal."

EDIT: Wouldn't solve everything, to be clear, but it's the kind of sweeping change you can clearly make in a rules update without a full codex.

If somehow that got passed it would be so funny for 2-3 days, because our doctrine rules aren't called doctrine rules, so we would keep them, and GW often forget about clone rules GK have. Like our interceptors having sudo fly working like the old fly, after GW changed how fly works for a long time.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Doesn't change the fact, that the community will regard it , in general, as negligence of anything but the cashcow, whilest the cahscow get's milked to death.
in the long term, their "tuesday" decision will hurt them.
And for the others, the finecrap units left and those units which just needed and deserved a more pressing update getting ignored time and time again, has an impact on their sales figures.

Buddy, the community at large does not give a single gak that R&H are squatted, lol.

I would also point to a thread either here or elsewhere about people who had played Nids/eldar heck even choas since 2nd/3rd/4th&5th edition saying they have either started Marines or started playing the choas as loyalists becuase the rules inbalance is too great for the game to be an enjoyable experience.

Neglecting everything that's not got the damn Primaracrap keyword is killing the lore=game Experiance and 40k is not a good enough game to live on it's game play alone.

So when you loose all the as marine players call them NPC factions the game system will be a shadow of it's self.

It could be what it is always suppose to have been Horus Heresy that never ended, with wierdos playing non marine factions, and historical players doing an IG army.

Ice_can wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Doesn't change the fact, that the community will regard it , in general, as negligence of anything but the cashcow, whilest the cahscow get's milked to death.
in the long term, their "tuesday" decision will hurt them.
And for the others, the finecrap units left and those units which just needed and deserved a more pressing update getting ignored time and time again, has an impact on their sales figures.

Buddy, the community at large does not give a single gak that R&H are squatted, lol.

I would also point to a thread either here or elsewhere about people who had played Nids/eldar heck even choas since 2nd/3rd/4th&5th edition saying they have either started Marines or started playing the choas as loyalists becuase the rules inbalance is too great for the game to be an enjoyable experience.

Neglecting everything that's not got the damn Primaracrap keyword is killing the lore=game Experiance and 40k is not a good enough game to live on it's game play alone.

So when you loose all the as marine players call them NPC factions the game system will be a shadow of it's self.

Marine players aren't the ones calling everyone else NPC factions. it's mostly the people who like those factions using that term. If you think that Marine players are dismissive of other factions and want them squatted you're clueless.
Now Marine players have noted the economics of why Marine releases happen so often, but they're not being dismissive they're just pointing out the realistic facts

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Doesn't change the fact, that the community will regard it , in general, as negligence of anything but the cashcow, whilest the cahscow get's milked to death.
in the long term, their "tuesday" decision will hurt them.
And for the others, the finecrap units left and those units which just needed and deserved a more pressing update getting ignored time and time again, has an impact on their sales figures.

Buddy, the community at large does not give a single gak that R&H are squatted, lol.

I would also point to a thread either here or elsewhere about people who had played Nids/eldar heck even choas since 2nd/3rd/4th&5th edition saying they have either started Marines or started playing the choas as loyalists becuase the rules inbalance is too great for the game to be an enjoyable experience.

Neglecting everything that's not got the damn Primaracrap keyword is killing the lore=game Experiance and 40k is not a good enough game to live on it's game play alone.

So when you loose all the as marine players call them NPC factions the game system will be a shadow of it's self.

Marine players aren't the ones calling everyone else NPC factions. it's mostly the people who like those factions using that term. If you think that Marine players are dismissive of other factions and want them squatted you're clueless.
Now Marine players have noted the economics of why Marine releases happen so often, but they're not being dismissive they're just pointing out the realistic facts

It's happend in multiple threads, but at this point I am not wasting the energy on what was NOT the main point, if GW doesnt release something else that doesnt get it's once in a generation faction release hijacked my Primaracrap, they might have great short term profits but they will have no long term sustainability of profit.

Sadly it seems to be a middle managment culture that came about under the last nugget that hasn't been corrected or the quilty parties ejected from their positions.

Aren't marines the best seller for GW for multiple editions though, because it seems like focusing on marines and more marines models, and marine buyers works just fine for the company.

Karol wrote:
Aren't marines the best seller for GW for multiple editions though, because it seems like focusing on marines and more marines models, and marine buyers works just fine for the company.

Actually their financial results were in the toilet under the previous CEO untill he was replaced GW was looking likt it was going to be bought up by another conpany as he'd trashed the value of the company.

Heck the company was only viable due to non main studio projects not the mention the money wasted on idiotic situations like AOS doesnt need points, decurions locked behind paywalls etc.

My favorite Kirby move in 7th was selling a model which required you to pay another $10 for a single-page epub to get its rules.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Doesn't change the fact, that the community will regard it , in general, as negligence of anything but the cashcow, whilest the cahscow get's milked to death.
in the long term, their "tuesday" decision will hurt them.
And for the others, the finecrap units left and those units which just needed and deserved a more pressing update getting ignored time and time again, has an impact on their sales figures.

Buddy, the community at large does not give a single gak that R&H are squatted, lol.

i like how you completely disregard the bigger conclusion of the argument and like others only partially quote what was stated, well done. How about you come back when your reading comprehension has improved to an adequate level, but here is one exemple of the effect i am attempting to describe:

I can , i did , and i made a propper argument, a better case study is SoB.
It's the same principle with the only difference beeing the internal politicking made it possible to eliminate FW factions, whilest "unpopular" GW factions just stagnate into , nigh, nothingness.

Both situations lead however to lower player populations of these factions.
How many people played SoB, before the update? Alot less.

How many want to start eldar? not alot, infact it is according to my shop over here one of the factions that nigh never get's picked up for a faction.

It's the same effect that then by GW's beancounters leads to further marginalisation.

 Jidmah wrote:
My favorite Kirby move in 7th was selling a model which required you to pay another $10 for a single-page epub to get its rules.

That's still arguably not as bad as Forgeworld, where if I buy a Drukhari Reaper from them, I have to buy a book (99% of the datasheets of which are useless to me) to get it's rules.

Karol wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:


"Due to balance changes, Specialist detachments Doctrines are no longer tournament legal."

EDIT: Wouldn't solve everything, to be clear, but it's the kind of sweeping change you can clearly make in a rules update without a full codex.

If somehow that got passed it would be so funny for 2-3 days, because our doctrine rules aren't called doctrine rules, so we would keep them, and GW often forget about clone rules GK have. Like our interceptors having sudo fly working like the old fly, after GW changed how fly works for a long time.

I'd actually giggle to see them do that explicitly as a troll to start rules arguments that'd last, like, a week before the codex drops and introduces a whole new set of rules arguments.

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Aren't marines the best seller for GW for multiple editions though, because it seems like focusing on marines and more marines models, and marine buyers works just fine for the company.

Actually their financial results were in the toilet under the previous CEO untill he was replaced GW was looking likt it was going to be bought up by another conpany as he'd trashed the value of the company.

Heck the company was only viable due to non main studio projects not the mention the money wasted on idiotic situations like AOS doesnt need points, decurions locked behind paywalls etc.

Could be, but from what I have been told GW best seller has always been marines. If your company is doing bad, you are willing to try out something crazy with stuff that is generating loses anyway, you ain't going to risk the thing that brings in the majority of the money.

And GW doesn't seem to have stoped puting rules behind paywalls. Making an sm codex for all marine subfaction, only to follow it with a codex BA, SW and DW is just that.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Karol wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:


"Due to balance changes, Specialist detachments Doctrines are no longer tournament legal."

EDIT: Wouldn't solve everything, to be clear, but it's the kind of sweeping change you can clearly make in a rules update without a full codex.

If somehow that got passed it would be so funny for 2-3 days, because our doctrine rules aren't called doctrine rules, so we would keep them, and GW often forget about clone rules GK have. Like our interceptors having sudo fly working like the old fly, after GW changed how fly works for a long time.

I'd actually giggle to see them do that explicitly as a troll to start rules arguments that'd last, like, a week before the codex drops and introduces a whole new set of rules arguments.

Trolling does assume an intention. I somehow doubt GW's capability to do so successfully considering the , i guess "lackluster", skills involved in GW technical writing.

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Aren't marines the best seller for GW for multiple editions though, because it seems like focusing on marines and more marines models, and marine buyers works just fine for the company.

Actually their financial results were in the toilet under the previous CEO untill he was replaced GW was looking likt it was going to be bought up by another conpany as he'd trashed the value of the company.

Heck the company was only viable due to non main studio projects not the mention the money wasted on idiotic situations like AOS doesnt need points, decurions locked behind paywalls etc.

Could be, but from what I have been told GW best seller has always been marines. If your company is doing bad, you are willing to try out something crazy with stuff that is generating loses anyway, you ain't going to risk the thing that brings in the majority of the money.

And GW doesn't seem to have stoped puting rules behind paywalls. Making an sm codex for all marine subfaction, only to follow it with a codex BA, SW and DW is just that.

What's the issue with "paywalls"?

Artificial paywalls, through frustration, are bad for consumers.

That GW still insists and now facilitates further paywalling, by making the special former codex owners now beeing forced to buy a Dex SM and a Supplement is , milking or whale hunting.

Especially considering how easy it would be to just throw their lists / restrictions and full rules in the same book. Basically a part of the former SM population get's now double monetized and experience the "nice side" of frustration marketing.
it's something done quite often in the gameing industry, especially in mobile gaming and F2P games.

Well technicaly there is one, unless someone takes something that should be single content, and cuts it up to sell it to people twice.

Like selling a car and its gas tank separate. Making an BA or SW player buy the SM and BA codex to get rules for their army, is something like that. And it is not just an update like in the case of waiting for a supplement that fixs your book for 2-3 years, as bad as it maybe.

Or the stuff that was done to csm rules in 8th.
I am sure pre 8th ed, GW did the same thing, because it didn't seem like people playing longer were suprised by it.


Making a rule book and CA, and making people buy both, if they want to play the game normaly, is again the same. cutting something which should have been in a single book just to sell two books.

 harlokin wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My favorite Kirby move in 7th was selling a model which required you to pay another $10 for a single-page epub to get its rules.

That's still arguably not as bad as Forgeworld, where if I buy a Drukhari Reaper from them, I have to buy a book (99% of the datasheets of which are useless to me) to get it's rules.

BUt ForGEwORld Is tHe SaMe aS Gw!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well technicaly there is one, unless someone takes something that should be single content, and cuts it up to sell it to people twice.

Like selling a car and its gas tank separate. Making an BA or SW player buy the SM and BA codex to get rules for their army, is something like that. And it is not just an update like in the case of waiting for a supplement that fixs your book for 2-3 years, as bad as it maybe.

Or the stuff that was done to csm rules in 8th.
I am sure pre 8th ed, GW did the same thing, because it didn't seem like people playing longer were suprised by it.


Making a rule book and CA, and making people buy both, if they want to play the game normaly, is again the same. cutting something which should have been in a single book just to sell two books.

While agree that GW is doing this cutting thing, I disagree with your examples.
We all saw the repercussions of having one and the same marine units printed in five different books. Every new units needs a pile of FAQs to introduce, hundred of pages worth of PA were worthless to everyone involved and GW kept forgetting to update rules for one or the other marine army causing confusion and head-aches. Having one book with general use units and one book with the units and rules specific to your chapter is the best option as they are clearly not going to do away with books.

There also is no need to buy both the rulebook and CA, if you buy CA you have everything you need for matched play. If you want to play crusade or open play, you don't need CA.

Spreading legions and chaos warbands across two books? Yeah, that one was indeed selling a car without a gas tank.

 Jidmah wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My favorite Kirby move in 7th was selling a model which required you to pay another $10 for a single-page epub to get its rules.

That's still arguably not as bad as Forgeworld, where if I buy a Drukhari Reaper from them, I have to buy a book (99% of the datasheets of which are useless to me) to get it's rules.

BUt ForGEwORld Is tHe SaMe aS Gw!

by company data it is, it is infact not even a subsidiary but rather an internal division, unlike black library

Forge World and Citadel are like Texas and Virginia, two sub-organizations within a larger whole (in this analogy GW and the US).

I encourage everyone to think of FW in the same way they think of Citadel and that way their mental model will be fairly close to reality.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Honestly they need to stop doing this staggered release bs.

A new edition should come with a release of the full suite of new edition datasheets (index style) followed by the full suite of codexes. Followed by supplement books that give things to everyone, not 1 or 2 armies at a time.

Could you imagine if other competitive games released a patch to a single faction / hero / class and left them overpowered for a year? With every other patch never addressing the problem.
That be the death of the game competitively

Netrunner started to do this around when I left.

Yeah, it sucked absolute donkey farts after the first few waves being balanced. Suddenly having there be 2x as many green cards as any other faction for months killed any semblance of balance.

Yes but as long as people keep shoveling money to GW and giving them record profits they have no reason to change since it shows people are okay with it. We had our chance to really change how they operate and people fell for their smoke and mirrors bullgak hook, line, and sinker with 8th edition. So what did we get? More of the same but they are slightly more transparent and more open so everyone forgave them.

Wayniac wrote:
Yes but as long as people keep shoveling money to GW and giving them record profits they have no reason to change since it shows people are okay with it. We had our chance to really change how they operate and people fell for their smoke and mirrors bullgak hook, line, and sinker with 8th edition. So what did we get? More of the same but they are slightly more transparent and more open so everyone forgave them.

Perhaps lots of people actually get good value for the money and time they spend on 40K? I stopped playing when I stopped having fun around 2014. I came back and stayed in 2017. I will leave if I stop finding it worthwhile.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Artificial paywalls, through frustration, are bad for consumers.

That GW still insists and now facilitates further paywalling, by making the special former codex owners now beeing forced to buy a Dex SM and a Supplement is , milking or whale hunting.

Especially considering how easy it would be to just throw their lists / restrictions and full rules in the same book. Basically a part of the former SM population get's now double monetized and experience the "nice side" of frustration marketing.
it's something done quite often in the gameing industry, especially in mobile gaming and F2P games.

Feels to me like it is a matter of one's perspective and the requested price for something.

Three examples:
- Just as some Marine players (myself included) will have to pay for the BA supplement, others won't have to pay for a potentially higher priced base codex, if all supplements would be included in it.
- Players of some more neglected factions might be happy if GW announced for example a separate Night Lords supplement.
- Being able to pay only for the rules I want could be more customer friendly than only selling packages.

And at the end all examples stand or fall with the price, which is a subjective thing for everybody's own wallet. In a dream world where the supplement would cost 1€, nobody would care about the additional paywall.

I don't have the same "pressure to spend money feeling" about supplements as say in the mobile version of Dungeon Keeper or other games, where you have to wait for ressources to come back.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Artificial paywalls, through frustration, are bad for consumers.

That GW still insists and now facilitates further paywalling, by making the special former codex owners now beeing forced to buy a Dex SM and a Supplement is , milking or whale hunting.

Especially considering how easy it would be to just throw their lists / restrictions and full rules in the same book. Basically a part of the former SM population get's now double monetized and experience the "nice side" of frustration marketing.
it's something done quite often in the gameing industry, especially in mobile gaming and F2P games.

Feels to me like it is a matter of one's perspective and the requested price for something.

Two examples:
- Just as some Marine players (myself included) will have to pay for the BA supplement, others won't have to pay for a potentially higher priced base codex, if all supplements would be included in it.
- Players of some more neglected factions might be happy if GW announced a separate Night Lords supplement.
- Being able to pay only for the rules I want could be more customer friendly than only selling packages.

And at the end all examples stand or fall with the price, which is a subjective thing for everybody's own wallet. In a dream world where the supplement would cost 1€, nobody would care about the additional paywall.

I don't have the same "pressure to spend money feeling" about supplements as say in the mobile version of Dungeon Keeper or other games, where you have to wait for ressources to come back.

TBF: Dungeon keeper is probably the worst exemple and offender of such a strategy.
That doesn't change the dual monetisation of the rules though.

And the prices and i'd say quality aswell, will absolutely decide if the playerbase is happy that i agree on.

Marine players aren't the ones calling everyone else NPC factions. it's mostly the people who like those factions using that term. If you think that Marine players are dismissive of other factions and want them squatted you're clueless.
Now Marine players have noted the economics of why Marine releases happen so often, but they're not being dismissive they're just pointing out the realistic facts

I haven't seen a marine player say that either, but have seen MANY behave in a remarkably dismissive manner here. You yourself are fairly quick to dismiss/deny/deflect any criticism at all in fact.

Could be, but from what I have been told GW best seller has always been marines.

IDK if it's true, but at one point near the end of Warhammer Fantasy, it was said that marines as a faction were outselling Warhammer Fantasy models in total - people were (supposedly) buying more space marine models than they were models from all the Warhammer Fantasy factions combined. I used to be one of the first ones to say "Yeah, they get more releases but they sell more so fair play". The problem is, those releases never previously happened at the expense of other lines, and they weren't near constant releases either. That's where non-marine players are getting tripped up. I do think some of the criticism has gone a bit far, but then, when you consider armies like Dark Eldar ... it should be easy for even the most ardent GW supporter to feel for those players.

My hope is that Corona just royally screwed up their plans, none of this has gone as they intended, and maybe, once they get through the first 4-5 releases (all but one of which will be marines) of 9th, we will go some time seeing only other factions getting the attention they need.

Releases mean sales. Nobody is buying tyranids this quarter. Or last quarter. Or the quarter before that, because nids haven't seen anything new to make anyone interested in playing them want to buy anything new.

Who thinks lictors, the red terror, death leaper, biovores, or hive tyrants have been major sellers for GW in the last calendar year? Lictors and Deathleaper are crap fine cast.with great 3rd party models or kit bashes available. Biovores are the same. The red terror is fething metal. And everyone already owns more hive tyrants then they need.

Releases equal sales. If GW doesn't do releases then factions don't get sales.

 Lance845 wrote:
Releases mean sales. Nobody is buying tyranids this quarter. Or last quarter. Or the quarter before that, because nids haven't seen anything new to make anyone interested in playing them want to buy anything new.

Who thinks lictors, the red terror, death leaper, biovores, or hive tyrants have been major sellers for GW in the last calendar year? Lictors and Deathleaper are crap fine cast.with great 3rd party models or kit bashes available. Biovores are the same. The red terror is fething metal. And everyone already owns more hive tyrants then they need.

Releases equal sales. If GW doesn't do releases then factions don't get sales.

TBF it was never really the Sculpts or modells for Tyranids that put me off, it was allways rules.
GSC was a combination of rules and the Pricetag associated with a mass faction + the new GW prices.

I rekon, that models are a great initial driver, that rules however are relevant for the retention of a playerpopulation of a given faction.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Releases mean sales. Nobody is buying tyranids this quarter. Or last quarter. Or the quarter before that, because nids haven't seen anything new to make anyone interested in playing them want to buy anything new.

Who thinks lictors, the red terror, death leaper, biovores, or hive tyrants have been major sellers for GW in the last calendar year? Lictors and Deathleaper are crap fine cast.with great 3rd party models or kit bashes available. Biovores are the same. The red terror is fething metal. And everyone already owns more hive tyrants then they need.

Releases equal sales. If GW doesn't do releases then factions don't get sales.

TBF it was never really the Sculpts or modells for Tyranids that put me off, it was allways rules.
GSC was a combination of rules and the Pricetag associated with a mass faction + the new GW prices.

I rekon, that models are a great initial driver, that rules however are relevant for the retention of a playerpopulation of a given faction.

Agreed. And the last 2 Tyranid rules releases was their codex in nov 2017 and their PA book Dec last year which had some decent ideas and even a good one or 2 but was over all underwhelming when stacked next to the 2 SM codex releases in a year + supplements that has been non stop improvements.

Releases and sales don't just mean models. It also means rules. And most factions don't get either. So what happens to their sales?

 Lance845 wrote:
Releases mean sales. Nobody is buying tyranids this quarter. Or last quarter. Or the quarter before that, because nids haven't seen anything new to make anyone interested in playing them want to buy anything new.

Who thinks lictors, the red terror, death leaper, biovores, or hive tyrants have been major sellers for GW in the last calendar year? Lictors and Deathleaper are crap fine cast.with great 3rd party models or kit bashes available. Biovores are the same. The red terror is fething metal. And everyone already owns more hive tyrants then they need.

Releases equal sales. If GW doesn't do releases then factions don't get sales.

And GW logic means those factions aren't selling so they don't need time spent on releases...

Wayniac wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Releases mean sales. Nobody is buying tyranids this quarter. Or last quarter. Or the quarter before that, because nids haven't seen anything new to make anyone interested in playing them want to buy anything new.

Who thinks lictors, the red terror, death leaper, biovores, or hive tyrants have been major sellers for GW in the last calendar year? Lictors and Deathleaper are crap fine cast.with great 3rd party models or kit bashes available. Biovores are the same. The red terror is fething metal. And everyone already owns more hive tyrants then they need.

Releases equal sales. If GW doesn't do releases then factions don't get sales.

And GW logic means those factions aren't selling so they don't need time spent on releases...

It's what happens when you have beancounters count beans, but are too lazy or ignorant to understand why the blue pile is smaller and get's smaller every year, even if regarded proportionally to the invested ressources the ammount should've increased relatively...