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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation. And I'm not suggesting that GW isn't trying at all to make a better balanced game, just that it isn't a very high priority, and some amount of stir-the-pot is absolutely part of their model, so they wouldn't want a perfectly balanced game even if they could achieve it (which very little in 40k's history leads us to believe they could).

Here's another example: Thunderfire cannons. These were oppressively good in 8th, and are now total junk in 9th. Now I don't doubt that the changes they made were intended to improve the situation. But I also don't think they were still trying to keep them good, because the changes are so overboard that it would have been totally obvious in playtesting that they are unusably bad now. This is another instance of "flip the script." I have no idea if it was intentional, or just the result of a lazy balance pass, but they sold a huge number of thunderfire cannons in 8th based on at best lazy balancing that are now just gathering dust in 9th, based again upon at best lazy balancing. You can find examples of this all over the game. 9th edition codexes seem to have a significantly better level of internal balance than 8th edition ones, but there's still all sorts of stuff that you can't explain if you really think GW is out to make the best balanced game possible.

GW wants a game that's just balanced enough to keep people playing, and just unbalanced enough to keep people chasing the meta.

Oddly enough I think TFCs are underrated. People running around with servitors and murder buckets to score secondaries need to be shut down.

The idea of what is balanced can be largely determined by perception. Castellans were an exception where it was plain to see but stuff now is a little more hazy depending how you might approach the game.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'm weird in that really like the reivers far and above the other 2 variants of Phobos armour.

Personally I have 20ish currently and am looking to grab some infil/incurs to have a wider variety of poses for them. I am probably the target market for them as I like to have the same marines represented in the varying marks of armour and don't care about rules when I make hobby choices.

I do enjoy 40k but only with similarly minded players.

I like the models too. I'm toying with the idea of adding a Spectrus Kill Team to my Deathwatch... Then I'd have one of each.

 Bosskelot wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?

All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.

Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?

I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?

That's probably what he meant; they probably did/do sell very well since the vast majority of 40k consumers are not focused on competitive or hyper-optimized play.

But some CoD looking tacticool Space Marines? That's a popular idea.

Well they might've meant Aggressors, but the adjustment done for Centurions themselves from 7th to 8th was pretty ludicrous for killing the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Aggressors losing double shooting but the Melta dudes keeping it is fething bs design from GW and y'all know it.

Being able to fire twice AT GODDAMN ALL is bad game design, but nobody gives a feth because GW teat and all...

We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also Aggressors losing double shooting but the Melta dudes keeping it is fething bs design from GW and y'all know it.

It's buy-the-new-model-design, and too many people go for it hook, line and sinker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

I personally don't care what they do with their current rules edition. They pushed me out of modern 40K years ago. I'm stupidly optimistic enough to hope a balanced ruleset will come out, but 9th sure as hell isn't it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

There is really only two reasons GW consistently under bake or over nerf things. Either they are, 1 very incompetent and lack general understanding that most who play this game have for their game.

Or, 2 they keep their fingers on winners and losers and keep the lines going up and down in efforts to skew the meta or lightly press sales back or forth now and then.

I don't think its evil, just incompetent or an intelligent design for sales, as a company does like to do.

Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

A fool and their money are soon parted ways.

If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....

If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

A fool and their money are soon parted ways.

If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....

If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.

Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

A fool and their money are soon parted ways.

If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....

If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.

Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.

Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

A fool and their money are soon parted ways.

If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....

If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.

Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.

Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?

I'd rather have a cohesive force that I can learn how to actually general rather than "learning" something that works for 6 months.

Maybe one day Reivers will wipe the floor with everything...a boy can dream now can't he?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.

But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.

A fool and their money are soon parted ways.

If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....

If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.

Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.

Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?

I'd rather have a cohesive force that I can learn how to actually general rather than "learning" something that works for 6 months.

Maybe one day Reivers will wipe the floor with everything...a boy can dream now can't he?

Um, yeah, that's what I was saying. I've been playing Night Lords for two decades because I love the army, not because of whether they were good at any given time. But the pendelum always swings, so the stuff you like will eventually be good.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oddly enough I think TFCs are underrated. People running around with servitors and murder buckets to score secondaries need to be shut down.

The idea of what is balanced can be largely determined by perception. Castellans were an exception where it was plain to see but stuff now is a little more hazy depending how you might approach the game.

For 5pts extra you get a whirlwind instead. Sure, you lose 1 shot, 1 BS and 1 save but get +2 STR, +1T, +7W, +9M, an awesome stratagem and don't give away 2 different kill secondaries which hampers your list building.

Removing their strats, removing 1 STR, 1 AP and massive point increase made them crap. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they actually nerfed it so bad by intent because they don't want to sell it and it isn't one of those random units that suddenly became bad due to incompetence. It is a resin kit when almost everything in the marine line is plastic. They probably just wanted it playable in 8th but it ended up too good and its massive popularity lead to an increase in demand they couldn't supply due to it not being an easy to produce kit. Most Thunderfire cannons I know of have been recast or conversions since they were out of stock for quite a while and are expensive little machines. So they by intent made it crap so they don't have to spend resources on making more of them when they could sell any other marine kit. Wouldn't surprise me if they even wanted to legend it but didn't want the backlash from such a decision now that everyone bought one.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.

But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?

The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.

But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?

The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.

What range difference? The standard melta rifles and heavy meltas have the same range. The only difference besides the damage is the standard guns are Assault and the heavys are Heavy, and loyalists have a stratagem that gets around the disadvantage of Heavy weapons.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?

It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.

And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.

I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.

But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?

The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.

What range difference? The standard melta rifles and heavy meltas have the same range. The only difference besides the damage is the standard guns are Assault and the heavys are Heavy, and loyalists have a stratagem that gets around the disadvantage of Heavy weapons.

I brainfarted, for some reason I thought it was a comparison between Multimeltas and lascannons. What are we doing here? Lol

Where is the damage increase coming from? Melta Rifles firing twice and Multimeltas are the same except one is Heavy and the otherwise assault, no?

Edit: oh Heavy Melta Rifles. My bad. Yeah that's BS, not sure why that weapon exists other than "buy the kit and replace your Indomitus kit".

Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.

I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.

The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.

I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.

The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).

Except you only get 1 multi-melta per every 3 models, while the entire squad gets the heavy melta rifles, and can throw in the multi-meltas to boot.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.

I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.

The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).

Except you only get 1 multi-melta per every 3 models, while the entire squad gets the heavy melta rifles, and can throw in the multi-meltas to boot.

Well you gotta be sure the new Primaris unit can put out more firepower than Devastators and only cost marginally more while being better in nearly every way, right?

Yeah they're totally dumb.

I think this thread has helped me curb some of my anger and just accept things for how they are. I have three armies. I should not expect them all to viable at any given time. GW plays the meta for sales, we all know it. And thats what most companies would and do, do. So, I guess I will be starting to fill out my fledgling DG that I never got around to painting/building and put the sons and chaos marines on the shelf until the pendulum swing.

Table wrote:
...I should not expect them all to viable at any given time...

Ehhhhh...
Expecting every single playstyle in every single army to be equally viable would be absurd, yes. So would expecting an army to be super competitive every single edition. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that each army in general be viable in every edition. That just shows some basic care on GW's part (granted, this would require that GW have a solid idea of how they want the game to be each edition and then communicate that with all of the codex writers...).

That said, I do think that "Rules are temporary, models are forever" is a healthier and more fulfilling mindset than meta-chasing, so good on you for getting there.

GW plays the meta for sales, we all know it.

If they do, they fail at it a lot.

They do disrupt metas on a regular basis (often by dropping in a hard counter codex to a previous codex), and if they handled it better that could even be considered an attempt at game balance.

But they're kind of terrible at predicting metas or even creating them. New units (even flagship marine units) have reasonable chance of being utterly terrible on launch (primaris took at least three adjustments before they were even vaguely competitive in 'the meta'). And the SM supplements were followed by weird apology FAQs where they 'didn't think players would use the rules that way,' which marked them as shockingly out of touch with how people play the game (Even though they've long been considered princes of Ivory Tower game design).

GW does try for sales, but a lot of its FOMO, limited availability and relying on the player base to convince themselves that they need <New Thing> all the time.

Let’s face it, table top warhammer is a terrible platform for competitive gaming. Every single modern game I know goes through seasons or metas. This is a way to increase replay value cheaply, as you get to re use old assets. GW has adopted that mentality with their products, but not only is warhammer shockingly expensive, it also takes far more time to field a new painted army.

Pointing out that some new models are bad in game as evidence that they are designing for sales is shortsighted, in my opinion. In every release there are good and bad option, much in the style of ivory tower design. But here is the beauty, every bad option is just an overpriced good option, or a data sheet change away from being meta. So having bad releases is not bad business, it is just a matter of optimizing product management.

Companies like GW have terrible incentives, inherently. They want to dominate the market to impose high prices, they will generally do all they can to increase profit at the expense of consumer. Planned obsolescence, bad pots for paint, overpriced glue, rules for sales, codex and supplement spam, you name it. They will do all they can to dominate the market, and then squeeze it. What is the only thing keeping them honest? Competition. Do they have much, currently? No. So that’s why they are terrible to us.

The thing is, the majority of people won’t be taking life ruining decisions over warhammer purchases. So they are happy to let GW entertain them with hype and exciting new releases every week!, and do not understand the fuss over rules and prices and what not. I guess we all choose our battles and, for many, being rational in entertainment isn’t worth it.

If the competition authorities do not save us from GW, I don’t think we will. Sure, buy recast all you want, scout 2nd hand stores for cheap models, print them yourself. GW does not care that much since you are contributing to their hype train for free anyway. You still post in GW related websites, post your paint jobs in Instagram, bring them to play in the store or in a tournament. In being so anal about WYSIWYG you are doing them a favor, even if you print the options yourself.

So, find your joy in the game or the modeling, but do expect GW to treat you nicely. If you want a well balanced affordable and consumer friendly game, this is not it. If you still want to indulge in whatever remains of the quirky counter cultural satiric universe some nerdy folks created in the late 80s, indulge away but mind the shark in the pool (GW) trying to eat your wallet.

Table wrote:
I think this thread has helped me curb some of my anger and just accept things for how they are. I have three armies. I should not expect them all to viable at any given time. GW plays the meta for sales, we all know it. And thats what most companies would and do, do. So, I guess I will be starting to fill out my fledgling DG that I never got around to painting/building and put the sons and chaos marines on the shelf until the pendulum swing.

This is a more healthy way to view it. I'm used to the power ups and downs what I don't like is the squad set ups being all jerked around. That i will never be ok with. No one should have to worry on a new book drop that what was perfectly viable one edition is a total no no now for no actual reason and no " what's in the one box " isn't a reason and never was. We've been expected for decades to understand if we wanted more of a weapon to buy more boxes, or bits, etc. This edition is the only one where I've had to re equip or rebuy models and units because a perfectly legal load out for multiple editions is now for some dubious reason illegal. I don't power game, never have, so the excesses of choices never hit me. These lazy design choices are hitting me though.

Power is one thing, unit invalidation for no legit reason is entirely another thing. Especially when it isn't even about power as no one was stomping the yard with Plague marines alone, Wyches weren't wasting all with 2 of the same wych weapons, skittari MSU plasma groups weren't winning every big game, etc. It's just punitive changes in the cause of lawful stupid.


People should expect, every edition , that their army is at least viable played to its strength. This game should never be a " Well you need three or more armies to hope one of them is strong any given edition " If we start settling for that we really are rolling over for greedy sod GW.

Grey40k wrote:


So, find your joy in the game or the modeling, but do expect GW to treat you nicely. If you want a well balanced affordable and consumer friendly game, this is not it. If you still want to indulge in whatever remains of the quirky counter cultural satiric universe some nerdy folks created in the late 80s, indulge away but mind the shark in the pool (GW) trying to eat your wallet.

I agree with most of what you say Grey.

However, I would add the caveat that I expect gw to be polite, but when I walk out the door, they don't care what I do with their stuff, and I dont care that they dont care. I actually mean that nicely, gw and I don't have an emotional relationship, the hobby is my own, and how I interact with it and how I enjoy it is up to me.

Gw gaming, and tabletop gaming itself can be frighteningly expensive and also surprisingly affordable and with great value. It depends on how you approach it. I was stripping some iron fang pikemen the other day for repainting (I know, pp models but the principles are the same). Metal tab said 2003, and I've had those dudes since the mid naughties. And I'm still planning uses for them. I can't say my fancy trainers will be in use 18 years from now.

Regarding the shark pool, you have to realise gw wanting our cash for their products is only one side of the coin. The players are just as ruthless if not more so. If there are sharks, in my mind a lot of them are our peers, not just evil.corporate gw and swimming with the sharks, or not, is our choice.

Yeah. Chasing the meta does make things more expensive than it needs to be.

Right now? It seems each 9th Ed Codex is pretty decent when it comes to internal balance.

Yes there are of course Super Units in each. But importantly, you can still sling a list together from whatever you have and not massively struggle as a result. And for Necrons at least, only the Canoptek Reanimator is an out and out head scratcher of a choice.

Certainly from what I’ve read, the Dark Eldar have gone from maligned to perfectly functional, and not being tied to a single build.

Time will tell as more updated books come out. It could all go to pot, but it might turn out dandy.

As for why not just release them altogether? Finite resources are finite. And you need to release new stuff to drive sales. In general, a business looks to exceed its sale on a like for like basis, because it’s not enough to just be profitable year on year. You need to be more profitable year on year.

Mass releasing would certainly make for a strong quarter. But....what happens next? How do you top that the next quarter or the next year?

We can also see an arguably more interesting approach to that in AoS, where each book released ties into the ongoing narrative. When an army is released, there’s a reason given in the background as to where they’ve been previously.