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.

Voss wrote:


That dark eldar are coming out with bupkis doesn't help matters at all.

I disagree; the fact that the DE a) didn't change aesthetically and b) seem to have lost no units and c) gained 6 virtual units (ie. units without separate sheets- 3 Master HQ and 3 Elite Troops) bodes very, very well for CWE, as does the fact that JZ and the Banshees were not aesthetically changed. The DE had more reasons to worry than the CWE did, because our Codex has been bleeding HQ's and options which the CWE dex has not.

Note: I'm not saying the concern isn't warranted, nor am I saying that GW did everything right- they haven't. I'm just advising you to recognize that so far, what we've seen from the DE dex appears reassuring.

Voss wrote:

That high elf players got played with a bait and switch in AoS doesn't help either. Those sure were great spearmen and riders. Ooops. Sorry about that rug, hope you weren't standing on it.

Okay, sometimes I too look for the connections between what's going on in AoS and what will happen with 40k. But unless you're playing Daemons, or converting Cursed City models to Ordo Hereticus Acolytes, basically the only truly useful connection to be made is anticipating when the release schedule will be light for one game based on how heavy it is for another (ie. because Cursed City happened, we're a year to 18 months away from 40k WHQ 2).

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:


That dark eldar are coming out with bupkis doesn't help matters at all.

I disagree; the fact that the DE a) didn't change aesthetically and b) seem to have lost no units and c) gained 6 virtual units (ie. units without separate sheets- 3 Master HQ and 3 Elite Troops) bodes very, very well for CWE, as does the fact that JZ and the Banshees were not aesthetically changed. The DE had more reasons to worry than the CWE did, because our Codex has been bleeding HQ's and options which the CWE dex has not.

Note: I'm not saying the concern isn't warranted, nor am I saying that GW did everything right- they haven't. I'm just advising you to recognize that so far, what we've seen from the DE dex appears reassuring.

I'm pretty sure we aren't seeing the same things. I'm seeing the pinnacle of neglect, short of just not producing a 9th edition codex.

The pile of finecast stays as is. There is NOTHING reassuring about that. Its the biggest complaint (at least mine) and its not touched. I have no idea why in the world that would be 'reassuring' for Craftworlds.

Bunch of shooting and non-CC units get +1 A and... not much else.

'Virtual units' were a bad sign when they did them first time around, but at least they were accompanied by a pile of actually new models and even some new unit concepts elsewhere in the codex. Having them without the basic work being done? Not a fan. I know others are, but I've no obligation to agree.

DE looked like they drew the short straw and got checked off the list.

Voss wrote:

That high elf players got played with a bait and switch in AoS doesn't help either. Those sure were great spearmen and riders. Ooops. Sorry about that rug, hope you weren't standing on it.

Okay, sometimes I too look for the connections between what's going on in AoS and what will happen with 40k. But unless you're playing Daemons, or converting Cursed City models to Ordo Hereticus Acolytes, basically the only truly useful connection to be made is anticipating when the release schedule will be light for one game based on how heavy it is for another (ie. because Cursed City happened, we're a year to 18 months away from 40k WHQ 2).

Fixed to hit rolls
Return to armor piercing
Mortal Wounds
Morale = test for extra models to vanish from existence
Tzaangors
Mutalith Vortex beast

I know GW doesn't put the names of developers on books anymore, but if you really believe that the GW staff are now rigidly segregated, don't interact, talk or switch systems on a regular basis for different projects, I don't know what to tell you.

You fail to understand:

All I'm saying is that the dex is separate and the models are two separate issues. I agree, the faction's range has been neglected and needs work. But the dex effectively added 6 units and improved the army.

Dex =/= models
Models =/= dex

I mean, I guess I'm the annoying one here, because my point is entirely based on semantics.

I want plastic Mandrakes, CotA and Grots too. Very much. And I am a bit disappointed that we didn't get them with the dex.
But when I saw Trueborn and Blood Brides; when I read about the Master HQ's; when I saw the changes to Raiding Force and the army wide upgrades, well- I breathed a sigh of relief. The dex is fine!

The fact the range is still full of finecast is a separate issue, unconnected to whether or not the dex is good.

Wanna bash fine cast? I'll join you: let me start with the sslyth.... Damn I hate that model, and GW is evil for not replacing it.
That still has zero to do with dex, which actually looks pretty good. That's all I'm sayin.

PenitentJake wrote:
You fail to understand:

All I'm saying is that the dex is separate and the models are two separate issues. I agree, the faction's range has been neglected and needs work. But the dex effectively added 6 units and improved the army.

Dex =/= models
Models =/= dex

I mean, I guess I'm the annoying one here, because my point is entirely based on semantics.

Ah. I don't think that was semantics- I just didn't get that at all from your post, considering your point a) was about a lack of aesthetic change, there wasn't any reason to assume you were separating models out as something else and not talking about them when you're bringing up aesthetics. And then you went on and brought up up the banshee models and their lack of change.

But I still don't agree. The lack of models is still a huge issue. The number one issue, in fact. And of course, with modern GW... I doubt I'll even see these rules in play on the table before they're replaced by the 10th edition DE codex. So the state of the temporary rules is far less my concern than the lack of models.

And even ignoring that, the rules we've seen so far _aren't_ reassuring to me. They look phoned and wildly flailing to solve problems the army doesn't have, while not solving problems it does have. Woo, +1 A warriors! Woo, worse heavy splinter bolters! Woo, no new options for characters, just required paper upgrades (traits, relics, etc) to make a vaguely passable assassin for a single round. Because dark gods know the actual special character duelist is fairly pants at her actual job. Just call 'Master' Archon Bob in to wave that Djin about instead.

When one of my armies goes from less options to more options I see that as an improvement, but that's just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
I just didn't get that at all from your post, considering your point a) was about a lack of aesthetic change, there wasn't any reason to assume you were separating models out as something else and not talking about them when you're bringing up aesthetics.

Hm...

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:


That dark eldar are coming out with bupkis doesn't help matters at all.

I disagree; the fact that the DE a) didn't change aesthetically and b) seem to have lost no units and c) gained 6 virtual units (ie. units without separate sheets- 3 Master HQ and 3 Elite Troops) bodes very, very well for CWE, as does the fact that JZ and the Banshees were not aesthetically changed. The DE had more reasons to worry than the CWE did, because our Codex has been bleeding HQ's and options which the CWE dex has not.

Note: I'm not saying the concern isn't warranted, nor am I saying that GW did everything right- they haven't. I'm just advising you to recognize that so far, what we've seen from the DE dex appears reassuring.

Emphasis mine.

Yep. Those words are there. I didn't suggest he didn't say them- I literally meant point a), rather than b) or c)

I disagree; the fact that the DE a) didn't change aesthetically and b) seem to have lost no units and c) gained 6 virtual units (ie. units without separate sheets- 3 Master HQ and 3 Elite Troops) bodes very, very well for CWE, as does the fact that JZ and the Banshees were not aesthetically changed. The DE had more reasons to worry than the CWE did, because our Codex has been bleeding HQ's and options which the CWE dex has not.

But these words also there. It seems weird to read that as just about the codex and not about the models when he's specifically calling out modelsPoint a) and banshees are about models, Points b) and c) are about the codex. I didn't see him as taking models and codex as separate issues because he was talking about both, all mixed up in the same paragraph.


----

When one of my armies goes from less options to more options I see that as an improvement, but that's just me.

I haven't seen 'more options' from the previews. Sure there will be the usual relic, trait and strat shuffle (and subfaction bonuses changed for good or ill), but... whatever.
Paying for upgrades (via points or CPs) is just another form of the normal shuffle- it isn't any additional depth.

"virtual units" are pretty lackluster. We've seen them in only a small handful of places. They're effectively units that don't have models, you're expected to just use the same model and call it something different on the table. They generate no hype and aren't a sign of things being in a good position. On the contrary, I'd say it's a bad thing to see 'filler' datasheets like these.

If the Master Archon (and other filler characters and elites) had come with models, or a new bits pack or something, THAT would have been something exciting.

But no, it's only Space Marines that actually gets models for unknown characters, while Drukhari still don't have a model for Vect or half the other characters they introduced and then axed from the codex...

Voss wrote:
Yep. Those words are there.

Don't let that get in the way, of course.

Paying for upgrades (via points or CPs) is just another form of the normal shuffle- it isn't any additional depth.

It literally is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:
We've seen them in only a small handful of places.

Because there have only been a small handful of 9th edition codex, which all have such options. Safe to say it will be standard at this point.

They're effectively units that don't have models, you're expected to just use the same model and call it something different on the table.

I agree; that is literally what they are. Not having character choices which work this way is actually a quite recent development, if it can really be said to have gone away at all. Command traits and relics also fit that description.

They generate no hype

Objectively false even within the context of this discussion, let alone the community.

and aren't a sign of things being in a good position.

By which definition things have not been in a good position, ever, in any edition.

On the contrary, I'd say it's a bad thing to see 'filler' datasheets like these.

Articulate to me exactly how a person with these options would be worse off than a person without them.

A Filler Datasheet is, to me, similar to a 'quick and easy cash grab'. Its extra rules in a codex, which many might see as a good thing, but I tend to look at the company from a model standpoint, not a book standpoint.

Lately, it seems like GW is more interested in selling us books than selling us models for the factions that need them.

Now, to a degree, filler datasheets can be a great thing for modelers and converters, but with the trend of many models going mono-pose, with fewer options in the boxes, it's becoming more difficult for the lay-person or newbie to create a converted model for many factions.

Leveling the pros and cons, I still see it as a bad thing, a symptom of the direction that GW is pushing, to sell us more paper than more plastic.

I'd rather see more plastic, and so that's why I view it that way. Difference in opinion is just that.

How does the addition of those dataslates displace model development? There was never a point where resources could have been devoted to DEldar models but they decided to devote those resources to making extra dataslates instead. It is marines who are sucking up those resources. Marines who also got the same manner of upgrade options despite ludicrous amounts of new model support. Again, all the 9th edition codex have that. How is it bad? How are we worse off for those being there?

Upgrade unit options are not the problem here, nor even a symptom.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
How does the addition of those dataslates displace model development? There was never a point where resources could have been devoted to DEldar models but they decided to devote those resources to making extra dataslates instead. It is marines who are sucking up those resources. Marines who also got the same manner of upgrade options despite ludicrous amounts of new model support. Again, all the 9th edition codex have that. How is it bad? How are we worse off for those being there?

Upgrade unit options are not the problem here, nor even a symptom.

I agree with you on the fact of resources (and especially the part about space marines sucking up all those resources, hence why I started this thread in the first place, lol)

I personally just don't think that filler datasheets are a good thing. I don't know that we're worse off, all I can say is that I have a gut feeling that the path it leads to is not a great one for the 40k game. Like I said, that's just my opinion. If I had to extrapolate on it, I could, but it'd be a lot of 'i think' and 'i feel', with not a lot of hard evidence, tbh.

I think GW's plan was to give the edition's starter armies large releases up front, then lean down on to focus on blitzing dexes for the first year.

During this first year of Codex releases, they also want to train us for their new way of sustaining development without resetting editions. Which is the Quaterly (or Semi Annually) campaign cycle.

Once Codexes stop coming, these campaign cycles can drive the model release schedule in perpetuity. It goes like this:

Every year is a campaign with four seasons; each season, you get a campaign book focusing on four factions, a WD Flashpoint series, a Crusade Mission Pack, a VS. box with one new unit for each faction. Since a campaign is a full year, we'll all be playing along with the Tale of Four Warlords, who wil start Crusades every year, and we'll be encouraged to match their pace of 25 PL every two months as a self motivator, fighting in all of the Theatres of war that they fight in with Crusades of our own.

One of the VS boxes released in a year will contain a faction refresh with a large release- probably Q1 in order to capitalize on new years resolution/ tale of four gamers/ hobby bongo cards etc.

The cycles that don't include the faction refresh army will feature a second wave for an army instead- likely one of the two armies featured in the box in order to synergize with the single model locked behind the vs. box for the cycle.

Every year, the previous campaign's Armies of Renown are retired so that the next campaign cycle can create new ones, and the system repeats.

Now should GW have waited til all the dexes were out to introduce us to the perpetual motion machine? Maybe. But I think they want to test their recipe so that they nail it in the first year without Codex releases, because if it doesn't perform well as a driver of sales, they'll want to tweak it or abandon it.

I think that's exactly what happened in eighth; they gave us Vigilus during the Codex release to test proof concept. It worked well enough that they wanted to try it again with a shorter release cycle to see just how far it would go. On the second round, they aimed way too high, and people did not like it as much as they thought.

In fact, people disliked it enough that GW thought that people might need a new edition as a palate cleanser, and they cooked up Crusade as an integrated ruleset to increase the odds of the campaign cycle concept landing harder the next time around.

I think the quarterly campaign cycle would be really good for the game. I may not have it exactly right- like I said, semi annual cycle vs quarterly cycle; campaign length could also change independently of cycle length.

It will appear inconsistent until they've perfected it, at which point it'll be like clockwork.

During this first year of Codex releases, they also want to train us for their new way of sustaining development without resetting editions. Which is the Quaterly (or Semi Annually) campaign cycle.

Nope. Just... nope. This is the same line of thinking that allowed people to convince themselves that 8th was going to be some sort of mythical Living Ruleset and we wouldn't see another edition for a long while.

Instead they did the same thing as 7th, but turned up the speed for 8th. This is the same thing all over again. It just seems slower because of the real world impacting on releases.

This is just more churn and burn, an extra layer of income to guzzle down while everything else proceeds as normal. Codexes aren't going to stop, and editions won't either.

Well that's a theory....

I'd love to believe that GW are that competent, but that sounds a bit more like head-canon.

 waefre_1 wrote:
I'd love to believe that GW are that competent, but that sounds a bit more like head-canon.

Lol yeah.

All that GW have ACTUALLY done is figure out that selling books is a nice boost to profit, so churning out 16+ codexes in an edition (plus campaign books and other things) nets them plenty more profit than... not doing that.

Meanwhile, they can pass it off as trying to keep all the armies up to date with the new edition, even if codexes released at the end of one edition are rapidly invalidated or replaced at the start of the new one (which means some factions may buy two codexes within the span of 12 months, like space marines and potentially Admech coming soon).

Even if a player only buys books that pertain to their single army, over the span of 2 editions they might get 3-4 book purchases out of that single player, between two codexes and two campaign books, not even counting the two core rulebooks (one for each edition) and a 'Chapter Approved' every year, and maybe even a cheeky White Dwarf that might have new rules for their faction.

There's nothing grand about this plan. Nothing special. No 'living ruleset' or anything like that. They'll pump out books as quick as they can because people keep buying them for the one or two lines of rules that apply to their faction that give them an extra 'oomph', or for the collectors that can't seem to help themselves and must have all the books on their overburdened shelves.

THIS. This has been my past...well...year, since 9th came out. When multiple SM Codexes come out in a row and SM releases sneak out with every other release...welp, it burned me out. I've sold myself out of 40k. Maybe once financial situations change RL I'll return or maybe when CSM get updated to be on par but for now I'm more focused on AoS due to a friend getting heavily into it.

GW has not shown a propensity to stick to the same release paradigm for long enough to even test that theory, I think.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW has not shown a propensity to stick to the same release paradigm for long enough to even test that theory, I think.

Yeah. They change horses mid-race so often that I'll be suitably impressed if every faction gets a Codex before they unceremoniously dump Crusade next edition.

drbored wrote:
A Filler Datasheet is, to me, similar to a 'quick and easy cash grab'. Its extra rules in a codex, which many might see as a good thing, but I tend to look at the company from a model standpoint, not a book standpoint.

I'm not sure I'd agree, though I personally dislike the 'Master' datasheets for a different reason.

They make the non-Master versions of HQs completely pointless.

Could they not have given DE something more like the invisible wargear Cryptek's got or else something like Pivotal Roles?

This just feels like the illusion of choice rather than actual choice.

I am sick of seeing Space Marines get 30 new releases every edition, while armies that really need releases get a model or two.

It just sucks.

Like the new Dark Eldar codex coming out, they are getting one model. One.
They couldn’t even get a box of Grotesques or Mandrakes.

While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

 dan2026 wrote:
I am sick of seeing Space Marines get 30 new releases every edition, while armies that really need releases get a model or two.

It just sucks.

Like the new Dark Eldar codex coming out, they are getting one model. One.
They couldn’t even get a box of Grotesques or Mandrakes.

While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

And in many cases, a space marine model that nobody really wanted either.

It is beyond the meme at this point. It was actually SUPER REFRESHING to not see a SINGLE loyalist space marine in the whole of the reveals today. There were some chaos marines in stained glass, but those don't count.

So a lot of doubt about about campaign driven perma-edition. And truth be told, though I'm the one who put it out there, I have doubts myself.

I've had doubts since the late 90's the we'd ever see GSC again.
I've had doubts since the early 2k's that we were ever getting plastic sisters.
Custodes weren't even on my radar.
Didn't think we'd get Trueborn or Blood Brides either.
Remember how certain everyone was that DE transport capacity wasn't going up?
Had almost forgotten that Ambulls and Zoats existed.
Never expected a new plastic Inquisitor... Or Rogue traders.
Wasn't sure the Redemption would ever come back either.

How many of you had similar thoughts?

In the past five years, a lot of my expectations have been exceeded. Admittedly, an ever-edition would be the biggest possible change GW could make to their established business practices.

But the UK and other European countries are getting subscriptions, which also cater to a quarterly growth cycle. Look at the success of the small format AoS games and their seasonal approach.

I could certainly be wrong; it would be the biggest change they could make. Would sure shut up a lot of haters though, wouldn't it?

drbored wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
I am sick of seeing Space Marines get 30 new releases every edition, while armies that really need releases get a model or two.

It just sucks.

Like the new Dark Eldar codex coming out, they are getting one model. One.
They couldn’t even get a box of Grotesques or Mandrakes.

While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

And in many cases, a space marine model that nobody really wanted either.

It is beyond the meme at this point. It was actually SUPER REFRESHING to not see a SINGLE loyalist space marine in the whole of the reveals today. There were some chaos marines in stained glass, but those don't count.

God yes. Seeing all the hints of the new Ork stuff was so refreshing.

Its not the Eldar I wanted but its still super cool to see.

Gives me a glimmer of hope. Just a glimmer though.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like the self fulfilling prophecy of "marine kits sell, so we should make more, eldar kits don't sell so we shouldn't" really comes into play. Particularly because when they have done new eldar kits the prices have just happened to be particularly painful relative to other releases, affecting sales further. That phoenix box could may have had foolish management thinking 'oh people don't like eldar' while missing or undervaluing the effect of how high priced it was vs what you got.

It was more likely some suit who wanted to prove that Eldar kits don't sell. This kind of chicanery happens all the time in the corporate world.

drbored wrote:

It is beyond the meme at this point. It was actually SUPER REFRESHING to not see a SINGLE loyalist space marine in the whole of the reveals today.

Instead, Sisters are now getting Marine units too!

 dan2026 wrote:
While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of hyperbole strikes again.

Serious question - aside from Ventris, have we actually seen any new SM models/kits previewed this year? I think the Gladiator and Speeders were reviewed last year, weren't they, and I'm know the HI and their Captain were, even if they were only released with the latest Kill Team box.

I'm fully aware that we've seen a number of releases - tied to Dark Angels & Kill Team - but as far as I'm aware the SM pipeline is currently dry when it comes to unreleased, but previewed, models.

drbored wrote:
We can only hope that GW has saved up enough 'space marine' money that they can actually release some other factions over the rest of this year and the next.

It's actually kind of impressive that they can give Lumineth Realm Lords, a brand new model range, TWO MASSIVE WAVES of miniatures, but can't be bothered to update Eldar.

At this point, it's conscious. They don't want to give too much attention to Eldar because they're another good-guy army, and elves are popular, and they're worried it'll take attention away from Astartes.

 Dysartes wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of hyperbole strikes again.

Serious question - aside from Ventris, have we actually seen any new SM models/kits previewed this year? I think the Gladiator and Speeders were reviewed last year, weren't they, and I'm know the HI and their Captain were, even if they were only released with the latest Kill Team box.

I'm fully aware that we've seen a number of releases - tied to Dark Angels & Kill Team - but as far as I'm aware the SM pipeline is currently dry when it comes to unreleased, but previewed, models.

Oh, that makes me feel better. There aren't any new marines previewed this year yet, how nice. /s

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
While every week we see yet another fancy Space Marine model nobody really needed.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of hyperbole strikes again.

Serious question - aside from Ventris, have we actually seen any new SM models/kits previewed this year? I think the Gladiator and Speeders were reviewed last year, weren't they, and I'm know the HI and their Captain were, even if they were only released with the latest Kill Team box.

I'm fully aware that we've seen a number of releases - tied to Dark Angels & Kill Team - but as far as I'm aware the SM pipeline is currently dry when it comes to unreleased, but previewed, models.

Oh, that makes me feel better. There aren't any new marines previewed this year yet, how nice. /s

Well, in terms of further releases in 2021, it indicates a period of respite - how long a period, I wouldn't want to speculate, but it's a sign that we've got at least a few months without more SM releases.

As opposed to seeing "yet another fancy Space Marine model" every week, like the person I quoted was claiming.