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.

 xttz wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Three shootas per ten models if frankly bizarre.

The decision is slightly less bizarre if GW have another intended purpose for these kits where cost, push-fit, and fixed load-outs are an advantage over full multi-part with a million extra options. Boyz in particular would have needed at least one extra sprue to cover all possible options, increasing tooling costs by 50%.

Other options could include:

Another self-contained board game like the two revealed this week

A Boyz Kill Team set with KT-specific upgrade sprue, like the updated Cadians

A reboot of the Battle for Vedros starter sets, intended for a much younger audience in toy shops & department stores and with a lower price

After 9 other new kits for Orks this year it's entirely possible that the whole reason these new Combat Patrol models were allocated production resources at all is because GW has another purpose lined up for them. The patrol box clearly isn't the only product for these sprues because why go to the trouble of making everything push-fit and then include a regular Deff Dread in the same box? If this was the only end-product then they'd have just done regular flying stands for the Deffkoptas instead of integrating them into the sprue.

the reason in my eyes is most likely that they want to cut down on people just building their army by buying 4-5 of the discoutned start collecting set, or ebaying secondhand models split off of the start collecting box, and ideally they have it as a starting point but then they want you to buy full price kits for the rest of your stuff.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Or it's just because, as noted previously, GW doesn't think about the game when designing the models. Models first, rules second. For all we know the model designers don't even realize that having a mixed loadout isn't something anybody would actually do in the game. Maybe they think that's how people play - Orks aren't disciplined, this guy having a gun, this guy having a choppa, this guy having a special weapon - how Orky is that?! What's the problem guys? They have a long history of not including enough heavy weapons in dedicated heavy weapons squads for everyone to take the same heavy weapon, this is just that applied to a basic troops squad as well - again, not a distinction I'm sure the model designers even necessarily appreciate.

This theory assumes that the people who design the models are also the same people who decide how many of each option is included in the kits. That decision could be up to marketing or production departments. Do we have any evidence that shows that the model designers are also the people who decide what's actually included on the sprues in each kit?

In this case, each monopose model is unique (of the 10, 20 are included but that's just two sets of the 10 unique models). So there's not really anything to include multiples of. If you mean who decided that of the 10 how many were goin to have sluggas and how many choppas I don't think anybody knows that. But whoever did decide that clearly wasn't thinking of actually playing the game when they made that decision.

yukishiro1 wrote:
In this case, each monopose model is unique (of the 10, 20 are included but that's just two sets of the 10 unique models). So there's not really anything to include multiples of. If you mean who decided that of the 10 how many were goin to have sluggas and how many choppas I don't think anybody knows that. But whoever did decide that clearly wasn't thinking of actually playing the game when they made that decision.

Yes, but isn't it just as likely that instead of making that decision for "artistic reasons", or "models first, rules second" as you put it, the decision was made for other reasons, such as those detailed by The_Scotsman and XTTZ? Less artistic reasons and more marketing, production, or monetary. So the blame is not so much on the model designers than on those who decide what to do with the designs once they're done?

I'm with Scotsman.

They're this way because GW don't want people buying multiples to get a discount.

I'm sure they believe enough of their fanbase will buy multiple boxes anyway, and they're probably right.

GW is already asking itself why they bother making any modular kits at all, monopose is cheaper and they can charge the same price.

So don't buy it, or you can expect them to continue pushing it further.

yukishiro1 wrote:
"Don't buy monopose kits unless you want to send the message to GW that people will buy monopose kits" seems like a fairly reasonable take.

GW doesn't care if you're holding your nose when you hit the purchase button, they just care that you hit the button. Every time somebody purchases a monopose kit they send a datapoint to GW that monopose kits sell.

Doesn't mean you can't do it, obviously. It's also reasonable to say "it's better than nothing, and I'd rather they make monopose orks than no orks." Even if it is a little bit sad in terms of being resigned to those being the only options.

Mr My-hoby-is-hating-GW I was responding to said that if I buy ork kits, GW will make more marines. And if I don't buy ork kits, GW will also make more marines.

So essentially, I'm free to buy whatever model I like, since GW will make more marines anyways, correct? So mono-pose doesn't matter at all.

Well as people have shown marines have a separate release schedul. other armies or factions get models or don't get models, but marines get more or less the same number of new models each edition. So they don't take away any release spots from other armies. It is the other non marine factions that do. If Gw decides to update Necron, SoB and Orks to various degrees, there is a good chance that some factions, like lets say 1ksons or GK, end up with 1 new model. And next edition it can be IG, GSC etc and orks or necron get only one new model per codex.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Or just, like, buy multipose ork kits instead of monopose ones. GW often feels like it's still operating in the 1980s, but I guarantee you even they track carefully which stuff sells and which stuff doesn't and look at the type of kit it is, not just the faction.

But yes, everyone should be vocal about the reasons. If you don't like monopose kits but are buying them because you feel you have no choice, email GW with that. They won't care one whit about your individual opinion, but if they get 10,000 of them - or even better, 10,000 negative social media comments about it, new GW actually cares about its social media presence - they might.

Except there is no reason to hate kits for the sole reason of being mono-pose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Three shootas per ten models if frankly bizarre.

The decision is slightly less bizarre if GW have another intended purpose for these kits where cost, push-fit, and fixed load-outs are an advantage over full multi-part with a million extra options. Boyz in particular would have needed at least one extra sprue to cover all possible options, increasing tooling costs by 50%.

They could have put all slugga/choppas or shootas into the box though. I agree that this mix is particularly odd, especially as a unit of shootas made out of the new kits would just be an endless repetition of the same three boyz.

Well Da Boyz (Orks) cannot compete with Da Kustum Boyz (Adeptus Astartes)... Another step forward towards the Space Marine supremacy.

GW need to create an NPC faction badge so that non Astartes players can finally get the message of whats their actual role in the " Warhammer Hobby".

That is an interesting stand point considering, the orks before the new codex and after the new codex have a higher win rate then most space marine armies of any kind.

 Jidmah wrote:

Except there is no reason to hate kits for the sole reason of being mono-pose.

You might not care what your game tokens look like but others do, people like building and customising.

Karol wrote:
That is an interesting stand point considering, the orks before the new codex and after the new codex have a higher win rate then most space marine armies of any kind.

Win rate has nothing to do with popularity though, Marines have remained on top regardless of any meta shift.

 the_scotsman wrote:
the reason in my eyes is most likely that they want to cut down on people just building their army by buying 4-5 of the discoutned start collecting set, or ebaying secondhand models split off of the start collecting box, and ideally they have it as a starting point but then they want you to buy full price kits for the rest of your stuff.

Sure, this would make sense if there actually was a full price kit of new boyz too.

There is a full price kit of existing Boyz though, which they kept on sale much like the Chaos Warriors they kept on sale. And the Chaos Knights they kept on sale.

 Jidmah wrote:

They could have put all slugga/choppas or shootas into the box though. I agree that this mix is particularly odd, especially as a unit of shootas made out of the new kits would just be an endless repetition of the same three boyz.

To me that reinforces the board game / Vedros theory, because it's a way to show a wider range of Orks in a single squad. These Boyz are far more like BSF Cultists than any 'regular' 40k squad kit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm with Scotsman.

They're this way because GW don't want people buying multiples to get a discount.

That's a side-benefit to GW too, because why both assigning resources to stocking Megabosses / multi-part Boyz / Deffkoptas in separate packaging if people are breaking up Combat Patrols on ebay? I think the other faction boxes roughly work out to getting 1 vehicle 'free', while the Ork box effectively gives the Deffkoptas and Dread 'free'. The most likely outcome of that situation is the Combat Patrol gets replaced for one with less discount.

It doesn't explain why they bothered making everything push-fit and self-contained though. I'm struggling to think of any similarly designed 40k models that were not also used in a 'starter' product, such as edition starter sets, easy-to-build boxes, Imperium magazine, Sisters army launch box, etc

To be honest the problem seems to be linked a lot to how good shotas vs choppa boys are. If GW suddenly made a GK monopose kit, of lets say primaris GK, gave 2 swords , 1 halabard , one a heavy gun and one was the hammer leader, but the optimal unit load out was two falchions on each dude and never take a heavy weapon, GK players would be not very happy either. The good thing about the box, that at least the boys can be run as kommandos, so buying 2 boxes doesn't leave you with a ton of models you will never use. It would of course be better to have monopose dudes, but with both weapon options and an option to not have the heavy weapon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is a full price kit of existing Boyz though, which they kept on sale much like the Chaos Warriors they kept on sale. And the Chaos Knights they kept on sale.

Oh, that's not "full price" for GW's current standards.

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is a full price kit of existing Boyz though, which they kept on sale much like the Chaos Warriors they kept on sale. And the Chaos Knights they kept on sale.

Oh, that's not "full price" for GW's current standards.

Quoted for truth , especially according to the Battlewagon pricehike

IMO, if monopose Ork kits don't sell, GW's conclusion will be that there is limited interest in Orks, not monopose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is a full price kit of existing Boyz though, which they kept on sale much like the Chaos Warriors they kept on sale. And the Chaos Knights they kept on sale.

Yes, but the old ones look like crap compared to the new ones. Granted, more with chaos warriors than orks, but still. In any case I certainly wouldn't mix the old and new, it would look wrong just like the minimarines next to the primaris.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, but the old ones look like crap compared to the new ones. Granted, more with chaos warriors than orks, but still. In any case I certainly wouldn't mix the old and new, it would look wrong just like the minimarines next to the primaris.

I don't think the new Orks are better than the old ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, but the old ones look like crap compared to the new ones. Granted, more with chaos warriors than orks, but still. In any case I certainly wouldn't mix the old and new, it would look wrong just like the minimarines next to the primaris.

I don't think the new Orks are better than the old ones.

I think they're better looking. And they definitely are different looking. I think they would look wrong in mixed squads.

 harlokin wrote:
IMO, if monopose Ork kits don't sell, GW's conclusion will be that there is limited interest in Orks, not monopose.

That's exactly how they want you to feel. What are they gonna do, stop selling every army but Space Marines and kill their own game?

It's unproductive to have this fear. Frankly people should not have bought Death Guard or any other monopose BS if they feel strongly about it.

How long did Ork players wait for new models, and this is what they've offered? Especially when compared to Marines it's pathetic. GW knows Orks are the kitbash faction and they did it anyway.

 Crimson wrote:
I think they're better looking.

And I don't.

#ICanDoThisAllDay

My point is that our subjective opinions of whether we think the new Ork Boyz look better than the existing Boyz is kinda irrelevant.

 Crimson wrote:
And they definitely are different looking. I think they would look wrong in mixed squads.

We'll just have to wait and see. I'll see if I can put them side-by-side and see what comes up.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

How many times must I write up lengthy counter points...

How many times must I explain...

Why must I continue to content...

I have a number for you: zero times. You don't have to do any of that. You don't have to convince anyone that their opinions, facts of preferences are wrong.

I know that you are trying to be clever, witty or funny by having a whole list of stages of denial but instead of making fun of others it just makes you look like a fool. Which is a shame because I find your posts entertaining most of the time. And for the record, I agree with many of your concerns about lack of poseability or options, I just don't take it personally.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think they're better looking.

And I don't.

#ICanDoThisAllDay

My point is that our subjective opinions of whether we think the new Ork Boyz look better than the existing Boyz is kinda irrelevant.

Sure. Except if you like the old boyz, then there is no problem. They still sell those. However if you're like me and thought the old boys looked bad, and wouldn't want to build an army with such ugly and outdated models, the new better looking set having very limited options is more of an issue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We'll just have to wait and see. I'll see if I can put them side-by-side and see what comes up.

I'd love to see side-by-side, but I'm certain they will look off. I've seen pics of beast snaggas next to the old orks, and they don't work together. The newer ones just have different proportions; they're still cartoony, but far less so. The new boyz seem to be the same.

I dunno I thought this was funny

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

7. There never were any multi-pose minis. It was all a dream.

Goose LeChance wrote:
How long did Ork players wait for new models, and this is what they've offered? Especially when compared to Marines it's pathetic.

Not the best comparison imo.

Excluding Indomitus (the sprues for which doubled up a few unit entries and covered several edition starter sets plus the new magazine), Orks received exactly the same number of new kits this year as marines did last year. A similar proportion were mono-build / push-fit / easy-to-build too. The Marine (& Sisters) combat patrols also have fewer unit build options that the new Ork one.

Don't get why the Ork release is 'pathetic' but the marine one isn't.

 xttz wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
How long did Ork players wait for new models, and this is what they've offered? Especially when compared to Marines it's pathetic.

Not the best comparison imo.

Excluding Indomitus (the sprues for which doubled up a few unit entries and covered several edition starter sets plus the new magazine), Orks received exactly the same number of new kits this year as marines did last year. A similar proportion were mono-build / push-fit / easy-to-build too. The Marine (& Sisters) combat patrols also have fewer unit build options that the new Ork one.

Don't get why the Ork release is 'pathetic' but the marine one isn't.

So if we exclude a whole bunch of new Marine models and only look at the most recent Marine release wave, they're just the same as Orks!

Well I'm glad that isn't at all a biased analysis.

Goose LeChance 800685 11212591 wrote:

Win rate has nothing to do with popularity though, Marines have remained on top regardless of any meta shift.

Yes for marines. The one distinctive faction in the game. You have not seen waves of DE armies, before they got the rule set they got. Same with ad mecha and every other army in the game. Which means that if we are talking about models for an army other then the various marine factions, the rules very much become a factor in popularity. Plus even for marines, I have my doubts that scouts or centurions, generate sales anything close to what happened in 8th ed. Reavers didn't become popular in 9th, and technically they got a SW unique update.

Komandos, buggies, jets etc are selling great for orks. DE raiders at some points were gone from most stores. Chickens for ad mecha etc were the same. All those things happen were directly linked to rules updated, which were favourable.

In fact the speed of how something gets sold out in different web stores is a partially good indication, if something is popular. Or at least, if it does not sell out, it is a clear sign that something is not popular.