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.

Death guard has a complete set of new sculpts, so wouldnt it make sense for GW to make them over-powered to get people to invest in an ENTIRE new army? or who knows, maybe we just need something to take the spotlight off of marines?

Is water wet?

JFC.

GW has always taken the position that they are in the business of selling miniatures, not rules. It therefore stands to reason that they write rules to sell models. We can see evidence of this in the cyclical nature of codex releases and associated power creep with reset switches in editions and (more recently) with chapter approved and FAQ releases.

So, yes.

Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

In 40k time, the whole army is really new, they basically got a whole new line-up when they released death guard in the start collecting box set

bat702 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

In 40k time, the whole army is really new, they basically got a whole new line-up when they released death guard in the start collecting box set

Those models came out...over 3. Years. Ago.

Which is seconds ago in Eldar/Berserker terms

 Eldarain wrote:
Which is seconds ago in Eldar/Berserker terms

Great, so GW would make a gakload of money redoing Eldar, right?

This old canard. GW doesn't overpower models to sell them. If they did, they would be better at overpowering new models. We have vast amounts of evidence that this is not the case.

Given the popularity of Elves yes they would.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

bat702 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

In 40k time, the whole army is really new, they basically got a whole new line-up when they released death guard in the start collecting box set

Those models came out...over 3. Years. Ago.

Exactly. So why didn't they make Death Guard "OP" back then? (And no, I'm not saying Death Guard are OP.)

When a new model is released and it is OP, it is used frequently and is highly noticeable for being both new and OP.

When an existing unit is buffed to become OP, it is not as noticeable because people have still seen the model around before.

When a new model is released and it sucks, it is rarely seen because it is an expensive way of putting something worse on the table than what players already have.

It's analogous to an optical illusion; the new OP units are most frequently noticed and remembered even if they do not occupy a majority. Actually laying out releases to look at what is strong, weak, in between, and how they change reveals a strong pattern of complete chaos with some effort made to reign in outlying elements. Power creep is a still thing of course; buffing weak units to match strong ones is received better by players than nerfing strong units to match weak ones. But the idea that new kits are intentionally made OP to sell better does not have actual basis in the evidence.

 Eldarain wrote:
Given the popularity of Elves yes they would.

So then why were the very recent elf kits - more recent than DG -very meh?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Given the popularity of Elves yes they would.

So then why were the very recent elf kits - more recent than DG -very meh?

I don't know what you're asking here

Ninth's take on this is accurate. Far too many new kits (and sometimes factions) are terrible for there to be some sinister plot to constantly escalate power for sales.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

for some armies it is.

Not sure, if DG are overpowered, but clearly some units that were never used in 8th, which probably means that people few people bought it, now have rules that entice people to buy them. GW seems to do stuff like that for some armies, and I think it would be better if they did it for everyone.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

for some armies it is.

No, it isn't. We know what a 'complete set of new sculpts' looks like. See Sisters recently and Dark Eldar further back. Or Cosplay Elves in AoS.

Alternative hypothesis: Death Guard are simply an example of what to expect from all 9th edition Codexes.

They seem OP because it's appreciably better than what has come before. We won't know if it's OP until we've seen the results of tournaments that aren't happening and release of other Codexes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Given the popularity of Elves yes they would.

So then why were the very recent elf kits - more recent than DG -very meh?

Because they were Banshees & Banshees have never been better than "meh".

Racerguy180 wrote:
Is water wet?

What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.

Voss wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".

for some armies it is.

No, it isn't. We know what a 'complete set of new sculpts' looks like. See Sisters recently and Dark Eldar further back. Or Cosplay Elves in AoS.

GW called Voldus, or rather the triumvirate box to be specific, a "completly new set of models". That is one model who is actually GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK 795756 11043228 wrote:

What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.

Because GW wanted to clear stores and warehouses out of classic marines stuff, before they do a reset? From what I have been told in 7th ed, GK strikes were game play wise and unit point wise inferior in every way to termintors. Then in 8th the opposite happened, and now in 9th termintors are again better then strikes. The DG drone thingy with the meat grinder was a model no one used, now it has a really good set of rules. Inceptors were rather bad units in 8th as were the primaris dreads with plasma, now both are top tier units. On the other hand units like eliminators are no where to be seen in marine armies.

These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DG OP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...

On this ridiculous basis, I can't wait for the new Drukhari codex. It will have to be hugely 'overpowered' to shift that new Lelith Hesperax model.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DG OP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...

Yep, crazy amounts of confirmation bias.

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Is water wet?

What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.

This. So much this. You only have to look at the new Necron stuff to realise the theory that GW makes new stuff OP is bullgak. The Reanimator is one of the worst things in the book and the Ophydian Destroyers are pretty much the worst of the Destroyer cult units. The new Monolith is hamstrung by being a LoW. The Necron terrain, like all army-specific terrain, is terrible.

Also, the DG got two new models, not a complete set of new sculpts so every part of the OP's theory is wrong.

Dai wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DG OP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...

Yep, crazy amounts of confirmation bias.

Something in there has to be partially true, right? I mean, if you accuse GW of everything....

ccs wrote:

Dai wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DG OP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...

Yep, crazy amounts of confirmation bias.

Something in there has to be partially true, right? I mean, if you accuse GW of everything....

Ah, the politics method!

No.

Why?

Hanlon's Razor. That's why.

 harlokin wrote:
On this ridiculous basis, I can't wait for the new Drukhari codex. It will have to be hugely 'overpowered' to shift that new Lelith Hesperax model.

Given the Dark Tech errata I'm suspecting a half baked cut and paste effort with the odd nerf, I'll be surprised if the points are right...

Sgt. Cortez 795756 11043248 wrote:
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...

New rule sets for some armies do look as, if they were writen down without the author ever playing a game with the rule set.