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.

Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Sunny Side Up wrote:
40K being about Marines is ok. It's the reality of what sells.

But the supplement approach is just dumb and clumsy.

It'd be much better if they'd spin off the various Marine chapters like Blood Angels, White Scars, etc.. into individual Codexes. Sure, you have to reprint a few pages for Intercessors, etc.. in each, but a) customers don't have to buy two books, b) the armies can be balanced far better without a "generic" set of strats, WL traits, etc.. to consider that might be useless to one chapter and broken in another, and you could even adjust point values to reflect the relative strength of units in various chapters. Also, you wouldn't have to stuff all the Marines into a 12-month release window and could sprinkle them more regularly across the entire lifespan of an edition along with the other armies.

well the thing is they don't want to sell a BA player just 2000pts of models, and 2 books. they want to sell him more points, and a lot more books. So now the BA player may not get any special new units, unless we count the primaris DC as special, but in 12-16 months time, they may come out a book which will have BA specific blade guard, and this could be done for any marine subfaction. Special scouting or sniper primaris for RG, special eradictors for salamanders etc. Each such unit could warrent a page or two of rules, which means another 25$ a player would have to buy to keep up with the game, or even to have other stuff to play with. With anomalies like tau or eldar aside, most armies in 8th didn't stay good or fun to play for more then a year, or at least not without big restructurisation of what someone would play with, and more often then not the new playing would require at least a new codex.


In that regard 9th isn't much different then 8th. There terrain rules are different and core rules are different to entice people to buy and play with a bit different armies then in 8th ed. And those are good things. But the rest more or less stays the same. There are still horrible armies with rules not fitted for the editions, where people are going to get enjoy such rule sets for a year+ of edition. There is going to be power creep and there is going to be armies+, with rules much better then the rest. One just hast to be lucky to have onesown army fall in to the good armies bucket and not the other ones, and all is good.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

I feel like that is where we are heading eventually, and some of the profile splitting is just infuriating. There's like 3-4 datasheet for Primaris captains ALONE, most of which are just armor or weapon swaps.

If GW abandons their "no model, no rules" mentality, at least to a limited extent then you could fold almost half the codex datasheet together.

Karol wrote:
Maybe people that can play multiple armies or people that stay and play their armies anyway, and this ends just talk.

Maybe. But actually no.

Karol wrote:
I don't really care if someone says their faction is too powerful or not enough powerful. I care about stuff that happens in the real world. like an people getting bullied for playing the 2.0 IH by eldar or tau players, after almost 3 years playing bad IH all 8th/

ah and as "fariness" goes it is not a sociopath or non sociopath thing it is a cultural thing. Just ask someone from outside your culture, what their local views on what is considered fair and you would be suprised.

I guarantee that supposed bullying didn't happen. You're like a bad stereotype of everything non-Poles say about Poles in the wargaming community. I'm 1/4 Polish and have Polish family, all of them have a sense of basic decency and fairness that you seem to lack. Ditto for all of my non-related Polish-born friends. It's not a "cultural thing." You are just wrong.

Karol wrote:
We have a so called kali, character in a book not indian godess, law. Unfair and bad thing is when someone takes Kalis cows. Good and fair is when Kali takes someones cows. To give you an example. And I ain't promoting anything, I am just saying how w40k looks like outside of places like UK or US. And oddly enough considering how posted lists look like and how armies being sold on ebay and the like look like, the as you called it "sociopath" way of playing seems not exclusive to my area of the world.

No, Polish or Indian people are not as you describe. Either you're a racist troll pretending to be a Pole, or you're just uniquely morally deficient.

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

Not actually true, but it's really common for people who have no sense of sportsmanship, in life or in games, to think that everyone else is cheating so they have to to stay ahead. So I'll repeat, you're either a racist playing an Uncle Ruckus-like role adapted for Pole, or are uniquely deficient in your morality. Saying that Poles have no sense of right and wrong is racist, even if you happen to be Polish yourself (which I now doubt).

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 794465 11011672 wrote:
]

Karol, you're wrong. Plenty of people will acknowledge that their own faction has stuff that's too powerful. You're essentially saying that nobody has good arguments because you aren't competent enough to understand them, with your "how good with words" thing people are saying.

Like I mentioned, non-sociopaths have a sense of fairness and will complain about an unfair game. Sociopaths understand fairness too, but only *care* when the fairness isn't in their favor - this seems to be the viewpoint you're promoting. You come off like an absolutely cutthroat, unsportsmanlike player.

Maybe people that can play multiple armies or people that stay and play their armies anyway, and this ends just talk.

I don't really care if someone says their faction is too powerful or not enough powerful. I care about stuff that happens in the real world. like an people getting bullied for playing the 2.0 IH by eldar or tau players, after almost 3 years playing bad IH all 8th.

ah and as "fariness" goes it is not a sociopath or non sociopath thing it is a cultural thing. Just ask someone from outside your culture, what their local views on what is considered fair and you would be suprised.

We have a so called kali, character in a book not indian godess, law. Unfair and bad thing is when someone takes Kalis cows. Good and fair is when Kali takes someones cows. To give you an example. And I ain't promoting anything, I am just saying how w40k looks like outside of places like UK or US. And oddly enough considering how posted lists look like and how armies being sold on ebay and the like look like, the as you called it "sociopath" way of playing seems not exclusive to my area of the world.


And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

Karol, I'll say this with much respect involved, but I think they mean that fairness, as a base concept of equality can be pretty much agreed on by everyone, universally. Do some places stretch and twist and view it different ? Yes they can and do, personal bias on fairness is a thing. However, the base ideal of fairness and equality given across the board I hardly think is a matter for debate as we can all agree on what that means. The fact a local bias colors what that means to some is more a societal issue than a matter for marine over saturation and why it is good or not good or should be allowed or not or why an over performing faction should be punished for sins of editions past.

That having been said, it's just the same thing as sportsmanship. The ideal of that is you fight, play, work hard, hard as you can to win, but you do it clean and if you close, GG, show respect as you all did your best. That is the ideal, what you are calling sportsmanship is far from the ideal and more akin to winning at all cost which while some sports players may follow that in all areas isn't in fact the spirit of " sportsmanship " As is being discussed. Yet again the fact that it's so lost to some is more a worry of society and mentality these days then some real expression of what that means. It just feeds the very destructive " you are first or last " mentality which I don't personally feel is what anyone should be aiming for.

Pushing to win, doing your best, always the path forward, doing it at the cost of cheating but not being caught or fishing for unfair advantage and you've already lost. Really off topic, but if you want it to make sense to marines, right now they are just going over the top in capability of choices while others are languishing for a long time without any much needed boosts while they've had countless ones in the same time frame. Making them feel, at least for some, a good deal unfair and not very sporting. Much like how you felt for years on years on years getting your GK forces ignored or in fact nerfed over and over didn't feel very fair did it ?

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

'Sportsmanship means WAAC and cheating without getting caught because that's how I am taught to play sports IRL' is certainly a hot take. Not even a particularly valid one, given that that sort of behavior is generally considered unsportsmanlike, and therefore a bad thing you are not supposed to do, when it is uncovered.

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
And one more thing. I go to sports school, I don't think you know what sportsman like means, because for majority of people actualy doing sports, it is much closer to not get caught, while doing everything possible to win etc And this includes people doing sports in US and UK.

'Sportsmanship means WAAC and cheating without getting caught because that's how I am taught to play sports IRL' is certainly a hot take. Not even a particularly valid one, given that that sort of behavior is generally considered unsportsmanlike, and therefore a bad thing you are not supposed to do, when it is uncovered.

Its really not suprising that they think that way. They 100% have been influenced by the gakky community they grew up in and now they think this behavior is the norm, with no capacity to see other people's point of view.

bingo, they're just a product of their environment. a really, really fethed up environment.

 Carnage43 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Which is why a consolidation of profiles is necessary. With the advent of Manlet Marines gaining W2 in their profile, the separation of all these profiles is completely unnecessary and time consuming to sift through. Would anyone really care that an Intercessor squad can purchase a Lascannon or Grav Cannon? Absolutely not. Roll the two profiles together.

I feel like that is where we are heading eventually, and some of the profile splitting is just infuriating. There's like 3-4 datasheet for Primaris captains ALONE, most of which are just armor or weapon swaps.

If GW abandons their "no model, no rules" mentality, at least to a limited extent then you could fold almost half the codex datasheet together.

"Eventually" can mean anything with GW. We should've been demanding this since the 8th 2.0 Codex.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

 Blackie wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why 7 diffrent dexes, when 1 dex, with multiple stipulations and modifyable datasheets can do the same easier and better?
infact, there's even an argument to be made for GW because economies of scale could apply, you'd not even have to curb alot of datasheets / unittypes.

But customizability is not en vogue ...

Because one codex with 150 datasheets doesn't make any sense. Lots of issues, both internally and externally.

Agree with Blackie here.

I was very, very nervous when I found out that BA/DA/SW/DW were losing bespoke status, because I really thought they'd lose content and units. I can only speak for DW, but we lost nothing; we actually gained. I probably won't play any other SM factions, but I do have the BA Terminators from Space Hulk kickin around, and I do like Mephiston. Just those models could add up to a 25 PL Crusade. Let me think about this: would I rather buy Mephiston and a $35 book to make that happen, or Mephiston and a $60 book.

And sure, the cynical among you would say, "See, it worked- you're talking about buying a book and a model that you wouldn't have under the old bespoke system."

Guilty as charged. But those terminators have been sitting in a box collecting dust since the Space Hulk release- I only bothered painting the Genestealers, because I play them in 40k. Those BA are like bonus models- themoney on them was already spent... and was in the process of being wasted and unappreciated. That full priced bespoke dex and the expectation that if I bought into BA, I'd probably need at least 1500 points to really use it were always a barrier.

But now, small games are smokin' and Crusade makes them even cooler. $85 to put another cool little Crusade army in play is NOT a barrier to entry. The cost of the stuff I already own doesn't factor into the equation, because I already own it; it was purchased for entirely different armies (SM dex was purchased for DW, Space Hulk because of the Genestealers); it continues to serve those armies as well as it ever did, but now the stuff I already own serves additional purposes as well.

Edit: Argument fell apart on second reading. Trimmed the broken parts- what's left should work. Sorry to anyone who responded to the original rant. Think I caught it fast, but ya never know.

Well that kind of works out for you, but only if people actually play small games like that near you, here they don't really when we can play matches.

Also that doesn't make it cost effective if say you only played say space wolves or Deathwatch and now need two books just for that, it just kinda sucks. If we're all honest we know why they did it this way, to have most marine players buy an extra book or tempt mono faction marine players to dabble in others by making them have to buy the vanilla codex. Maybe to spur those uses of extra models to grow into new found larger armies in time.

It's not hard to see why they want to do that but it does kind of suck to some. I can see where it would be nicer to some others. However it is a feel bad to lets say me, who has to add another book to my collection whenever I want to use my other used to be stand alone chapters.

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

ccs wrote:

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

Choose a time period.

Look at the number of releases for Marines as compared to the number of releases for another faction.

I did a comparison a few months ago. I think I started with 7th edition and went up to when I made the post.
Universal Marine releases (so nothing subfaction specific-only stuff that general Loyalist Marines can use) was just barely under the total number of Chaos releases. Not Chaos Space Marines-all of Chaos.

An entire superfaction, arguably the second largest after Imperium, got only slightly more releases than generic Marines. If you add in subfaction stuff, like Bobby G, Wulfen, or anything like that... They'd have more.

Other factions get releases. But not as consistently, as often, or as much as Marines.

ccs wrote:

Table wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...I think I covered that with "for some reason or other". If everything was equal you'd still find something....

So you want to listen to the same complaints over and over again instead of new complaints?

the complains are always the same. Either it is my dudes don't have or other dudes have something. The only difference is how good with words specific posters are and that is more or less it.

It is interesting to read other people get angry though.

Some complaints are vaild. There are far greater differences in dark eldar releases in both frequency and quality when compared to Space Marines. I play Thousand Sons (incase it mattered).
Are you going to tell us there is no Space Marine oversaturation? Because that would be interesting.

Well, I explained my thoughts on that already (probably about 90 pages ago by now) concerning the Primaris.
In a nutshell though? What you're all screaming about is an illusion. You're watching the slow roll out of an entirely new product line (Primaris) stretched over a 3+ year period vs being dropped on you all at once within a 6-8 week window (ex: Sisters of Battle).
So yes, there's a steady trickle of (Primaris) Marine releases.
Meanwhile you're selectively choosing not to acknowledge any of the non-Primaris releases (SoB, Necrons, etc) that've been occurring during this period because the existence of those doesn't support the narrative your trying to convince everyone of that only Marines get support.

Throughout 8th edition and into 9th, space marines have gotten approximately the same number of releases as literally everyone else combined.

Even if you consider every previously-existing codex that is now under "the marine umbrella" then marines are only 1/4 of the factions in the game. They should not be receiving 1/2 of the kits. You can spin that however you like - call it a new product line, replacing the DESPERATLELY outdated fething 99% recent plastic space marine range, despite the fact that GW is releasing it as a bunch of all new units, but they're gobbling up a full 1/2 of the release slots like its the breakdown in WAP while factions like nids have gotten diddly since 2014.

feth, the other day i looked up when an Eldar unit I thought was pretty recent got released because I looked at the sprue and it was super dated looking, and Eldar have gotten a grand total of 12 new kits since the beginning of fifth edition. 12 years, 12 kits babyyyyyyy.

Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

you can make the same argument with Chaos as a superfaction beeing closeish to marines yet the superfactions get's less on average...
But hey, let's missrepresent the arguments made.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Funny you should mention that Sunny - Necrons are selling like hotcakes, and they are currently one of the most-played factions in competitve 40k. It's almost like if you update a faction's models and give them exciting new units to flesh out their roster, as well as good rules, they get played a lot lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of people on this thread are making the argument that GW aren't losing anything by spamming marine releases, and are going great guns in sales and profits. I'd say the second part of that is true while the first is false.

The irony of that is the argument is embedded in a 22-page complaint thread about how GW is losing good faith and buy-in from its loyal customers. Now, in an economy entirely predicated on customer emotional buy-in and loyalty, I would argue that this erosion of goodwill is an extremely serious problem for GW. They read the forums, they field literally thousands of salty complaints about this topic just on their Facebook page. Deep within GW HQ there are serious arguments being had about release direction and fanbase disenchantment - I would bet my last pound on it.

When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

 grouchoben wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

Funny you should mention that Sunny - Necrons are selling like hotcakes, and they are currently one of the most-played factions in competitve 40k. It's almost like if you update a faction's models and give them exciting new units to flesh out their roster, as well as good rules, they get played a lot lot more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of people on this thread are making the argument that GW aren't losing anything by spamming marine releases, and are going great guns in sales and profits. I'd say the second part of that is true while the first is false.

The irony of that is the argument is embedded in a 22-page complaint thread about how GW is losing good faith and buy-in from its loyal customers. Now, in an economy entirely predicated on customer emotional buy-in and loyalty, I would argue that this erosion of goodwill is an extremely serious problem for GW. They read the forums, they field literally thousands of salty complaints about this topic just on their Facebook page. Deep within GW HQ there are serious arguments being had about release direction and fanbase disenchantment - I would bet my last pound on it.

Sitting on my desk right now are 10 Dire Avenger models I created by finding 1 good sculpt someone had published online as an STL, downloading a free 3d animation program, watching a couple how-to videos for it during lunch at work, and then coming home and rigging up that one sculpt to a posing skeleton so I could make a dozen-odd poses that would be utterly impossible with the ancient 4th edition-era GW kit with its fething U-arms and horse riding pose legs.

Good amount more effort, though. If someone hadn't had a dozen years to craft a better-quality replacement, and if the price point of the GW competition wasn't literally 20x what I paid for these 10 dudes, ehhhh they might have stood a competitive chance. But they're still just relying on flogging some piece of artwork that was done 12 years ago by some fething artist who got paid for probably 10 hours of work back in 2008 and now probably doesn't even work for the fething company anymore.

If marine players still had the fething 3rd edition tactical squad box with the 2 special weapons and the 10 identical legs and the U-arms and the stupid pouches and gak that didn't ever sit flat on the models and GW had split the box in half so you had to buy 5 models for 35 bucks, of COURSE sales for marines would be in the toilet. You're expected to buy trash minis old enough to vote when you can buy vastly better looking 3rd party alternatives that convey the same concept objectively better for half the price.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah, the recent Marine and Necron releases are about equal in terms of kits, but if taking 8th and 9th Edition into account then the Marine releases outnumber those Necron ones by about 3:1. Oh and we could go back 5 years if you want, where the amount of Necron releases was precisely zero but oh look Marines were getting updated and new kits.

Trying to say there is any sort of parity between Marines and other factions is fething laughable and demonstrably false. You're either delusional or deliberately trying to stir up gak if you say otherwise. It is just plain empirical fact.

There is not. But there also isn't a parity between Marine and Necron players. So there shouldn't be, and it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

McDonalds doesn't have a parity amount of burgers and salads. More people order burgers, so there's greater variety of them and they make new variants more often.

You know what ,you're 100% right. And naturally, this should extend to the full range, meaning there is no reason for rules parity too. Surely if Marines sell more, GW would rationally cater to marine playerbase by giving them better rules? It incentivizes sales after all.

I mean isn't that what they have been doing recently?

(That does assume GW's designers are competent enough to make something overpowered on purpose. Evidence suggests they are not.)

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

Really? I thought people were generally pretty positive about their visual design?

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

I've heard various opinions on Bonereapers but nobody just outright hating them. I'm calling BS on this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When it comes to competitive 40k you can pretty much zoom right down into "good rules".
Remember how much Eldar was getting played in 7th? Yet we all know how outdated their range was.

The reception to Ossiarch Bonereapers in AoS was somewhere between muted to hostile, you could barely find a good word said about the sculpts... but once it turned out they were the most broken army in the game, suddenly everybody was painting 'em.

I've heard various opinions on Bonereapers but nobody just outright hating them. I'm calling BS on this.

Ossiarchs had a few issues with their marketing

1) They appeared out of nothing. There was no hint or build up really to their release. YES GW teased some things like the ghost in Shadspire, but no one expected Ossiarchs. Espeically when GW had been teasing other forces for much longer (Eg the two Aelf factions of which we have Lumineth and not yet Malarion's forces). So for some the reaction was cold because they were a surprise release

2) They weren't Tomb Kings - yeah like it or not whilst they are an undead construct faction they are not Tomb Kings. Some people wanted TK in spirit and design and didn't get that; so they were a bit jaded.

3) Their designs are very different to a lto of other races/factions/designs. They are actually really creative and I love them (heck I sold a bunch of stuff just to buy into them on launch day); but some people didn't like the direction. That's fair and the longer it was before their release the more you heard from the dissent group than the love group - its the net people complain a bit more.


At launch they were somewhat broken, if part because they are a very easy faction to win with if your opponents only tactic is to charge head long at you and get into a direct fight. They did have one very broken subfaction with a +1 save to all models, but that's been resolved now. They are also slower in general and have fewer units on the table so they can be countered; heck even in the early GW promotional videos the Ossiarchs were often losing turns 2 and 3 of the game on objectives and its only with a good plan that comes together that they could win in the latter turns

Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the smiling bone Tyranids.