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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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.

Do you genuinely believe that a release wave alongside a new codex should be allocated the same production & design resources as a new edition starter set that occurs every few years? If so I don't know what to tell you, other than it would be biased not to account for that.

For what it's worth, Necrons got the same number of new kits as Orks outside Indomitus, and the same number as Marines if you include it.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 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.

Have you seen this horrible monopose kit? It's one of the worst ones ever made, you can literally customize nothing about it, despite being more expensive than almost every multi-pose kit in existence!







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goose LeChance wrote:
How long did Ork players wait for new models, and this is what they've offered?

Most ork players didn't want new ork boyz though.

 Jidmah wrote:

Most ork players didn't want new ork boyz though.

Because they were afraid it would be monopose garba--...oops.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most ork players didn't want new ork boyz though.

Because they were afraid it would be monopose garba--...oops.

Even if it wasn't it'd be 1 model fewer for 25% or more cost.

Redoing any core model results in less for more, it's not something any horde player should be begging for these days.

I guess it's better to tap dance around GWs corporate greed and be content with ancient model lines or monopose junk

Goose LeChance wrote:
I guess it's better to tap dance around GWs corporate greed and be content with ancient model lines or monopose junk

So, provide your solution, Mr. Black Knight.

Oh, let me guess, is it bitching and whining on forums about everything GW does ever? How is that working out for you, Mr. Black Knight?

Has "Being a crybaby" successfully helped you to enjoy more of your freetime?

Yes, it has.

I did provide a solution. Don''t like it? Don't buy it.

Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?

Honestly the old boyz didn't NEED a replacement.
there would've been other awesome stuff that GW could've updated in there.. (a biker waaaghboss or a modular MA warboss / bigmek)

come to mind...

These here boyz are just annoying in a way.

I have to say, as much as I love old boyz (I had a greenskin army for fantasy and the design was equal for bot), this new orks look so much better.

A total shame that they are monopose and useless as a basis for building an army.

Goose LeChance wrote:
I did provide a solution. Don''t like it? Don't buy it.

Well, I guess then you need to shut up since I don't mind a good model being mono-pose and I am clearly following your advice.

Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?

"I can't be wrong! You must be the ones that are wrong! Who paid you to not have he same incoherent and self-contradicing opinion as me!"

Vatsetis wrote:
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".

Another reason I would not play my favorite army in yet another edition of 40K. This is exactly the kind of treatment that nearly pushed my out of this game, thank the maker for 8th. 7th edition garbage, never again. I can't see whay any one would buy into a mistreated npc faction unless they simply didn't know any better.
If GW can't give every faction a meaningful showing on the table on any given day then what's the point of giving them money.

Has anyone even tried the nu-Boys fixed load outs at all?
Fixed load outs is a larger issue than monopost-ish models.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most ork players didn't want new ork boyz though.

Because they were afraid it would be monopose garba--...oops.

I kept saying 'be careful what you wish for', but even I didn't think they'd end up as fething push-fit models.

 Jidmah wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
I did provide a solution. Don''t like it? Don't buy it.

Well, I guess then you need to shut up since I don't mind a good model being mono-pose and I am clearly following your advice.

Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?

"I can't be wrong! You must be the ones that are wrong! Who paid you to not have he same incoherent and self-contradicing opinion as me!"

I know you're upset because this isn't going the way you want it to and your trying to bait a thread lock but can you please calm down?

I won't be shutting up

 Galas wrote:
I have to say, as much as I love old boyz (I had a greenskin army for fantasy and the design was equal for bot), this new orks look so much better.

A total shame that they are monopose and useless as a basis for building an army.

One of the main arguments against new boyz was the inevitable price hike making starting one of the most expensive armies in the game even less attractive. Looking at price tag of beast snagga boyz containing two sprues, I don't think these fears were unfounded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goose LeChance wrote:
I know you're upset because this isn't going the way you want it to and your trying to bait a thread lock but can you please calm down?

I won't be shutting up

I'm merely calling out dumb opinions for what they are. So, are you still not going to explain how your argument doesn't make the squiggoth horrible? Or is that inconvenient for your conspiracy theory?

The Squiggoth is horrible, purely because of the price

The difference between a single centre piece model and a squad of infantry is so apparent I don't feel the need to explain it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most ork players didn't want new ork boyz though.

Because they were afraid it would be monopose garba--...oops.

I kept saying 'be careful what you wish for', but even I didn't think they'd end up as fething push-fit models.

Never underestimate them

 Jidmah wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I have to say, as much as I love old boyz (I had a greenskin army for fantasy and the design was equal for bot), this new orks look so much better.

A total shame that they are monopose and useless as a basis for building an army.

One of the main arguments against new boyz was the inevitable price hike making starting one of the most expensive armies in the game even less attractive. Looking at price tag of beast snagga boyz containing two sprues, I don't think these fears were unfounded.

Hypothetically, if new Boyz were released with 3 sprues covering all options at the typical £31 per box, then by using the same discount ratios as the other Combat Patrol sets the Ork box would not have included the Dread or Koptas. What we've ended up with is actually a decent compromise. New Ork players get a better value starter box but there's also an incentive for people not to break them up on ebay and cut into sales of the separate kits.

In the long run everyone wins, because lowering the cost of entry for Orks as a faction means more players, more sales, and more reason for GW to keep the range up to date.

Goose LeChance wrote:
Is there a Dakka Poll for how many people on here are former/current GW employees or stockholders by the way?

 Crimson wrote:
It might be hard to grasp, but some people actually have no agenda, and understand that GW is just a company that produces some great stuff and some not so great stuff. And then you only buy the stuff you like.

Is it really lowering the entry point cost though? dreads are not really used, not sure about the HQ, but the mounted ones seems to be prefared. The boys are what they are. Real ork armies on the other hand run 6+ buggies, 2+ flyers, 2 units of komandos with rest being flavour like rigs, jump boys etc A good patrol box would be something like a buggy, unit of komados , 10 grots and a character people actually use.

Most brand new Ork players starting from scratch aren't looking up the latest cutting edge net list and building around that. We just want to paint some cool Orks.
Especially when many new players might not even reach 2k points of painted models before the next major meta shift.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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?

To be clear, I wasn't saying it was the fault of the modelers either way. It's not their fault GW runs their business in the nonsensical (from a game design perspective - if they really are just a miniatures company, not a game company, it sorta makes sense) manner they do in terms of making models first and then giving them rules second. They're just doing the job they're told to do - and in general they produce much better results than any other section of the company, though again that's perhaps partially explainable by the fact that they're given freedom, while the rules writers are stuck writing rules for models whether they have a role for them or not.

New players generally don't have a clue what "real Ork armies" look like and they don't need to. To get started you need a bunch of basic dudes, big thing and a boss and Ork Combat Patrol gives you exactly that. If you swappped Deff Dread with Nobz, you would have pretty much Assault on Black Reach half.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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?

To be clear, I wasn't saying it was the fault of the modelers either way. It's not their fault GW runs their business in the nonsensical (from a game design perspective - if they really are just a miniatures company, not a game company, it sorta makes sense) manner they do in terms of making models first and then giving them rules second. They're just doing the job they're told to do - and in general they produce much better results than any other section of the company, though again that's perhaps partially explainable by the fact that they're given freedom, while the rules writers are stuck writing rules for models whether they have a role for them or not.

Fair. I was mostly commenting on your previous posts on the Chaos Knights and the available options in the Havocs kit, which you seemed to be attributing to the model designers. I think the Chaos Knights problems are mostly due to manufacturing: the need to fit (X) number of models on (Y) number of sprues in a box sized (Z). The same for the Havocs: the designers didn't decide to only include one of the cool new gun they designed, that decision was either done by production or marketing. My apologies if that wasn't your intention.

It would be really interesting to know how much those decisions are made by marketers and/or bean counters vs modelers. Like we know that it's miniatures first, rule second - but is it really bean counters first, miniatures second, rules third? Like do the modelers get a list of instructions from marketing - "we want a unit of space marine heavy infantry that comes 3 to a box, all armed with identical weapons, and it has to fit on X number of sprues" - or does that come later if at all?

Who makes the decision to cut models the way the Chaos Knights are cut up, that makes it impossible to swap bits from one model to another because they're all sliced in different ways? And at what stage is that decision made? Is there that one "that guy" in marketing who always demands they only include one of the new weapon and make kits as restrictive as possible on the ones he has supervision over, while there's another guy who is more hobby-friendly, and that explains why we sometimes get 2020 Slaangors and sometimes get 2019 Troggoths?

As far as I know we've never got any insight into that process.

It goes like this:

Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"

Designer: "Yes sir"

yukishiro1 wrote:
It would be really interesting to know how much those decisions are made by marketers and/or bean counters vs modelers. Like we know that it's miniatures first, rule second - but is it really bean counters first, miniatures second, rules third? Like do the modelers get a list of instructions from marketing - "we want a unit of space marine heavy infantry that comes 3 to a box, all armed with identical weapons, and it has to fit on X number of sprues" - or does that come later if at all?

Who makes the decision to cut models the way the Chaos Knights are cut up, that makes it impossible to swap bits from one model to another because they're all sliced in different ways? And at what stage is that decision made? Is there that one "that guy" in marketing who always demands they only include one of the new weapon and make kits as restrictive as possible on the ones he has supervision over, while there's another guy who is more hobby-friendly, and that explains why we sometimes get 2020 Slaangors and sometimes get 2019 Troggoths?

As far as I know we've never got any insight into that process.

My guess? It varies. Sometimes marketing requests the designers to make (X), sometimes the designers just make something first. But after that marketing takes over: is it going in a box by itself or a big box with other stuff? If so, is it ETB or not? Can it share sprue space with other miniatures or be by itself for an easier solo release later? Options yes/no? How many sprues? Then production figures it out. But the big decisions are coming from marketing. The designers and production are just doing what they're told to do. The "bean counters" are always the ultimate deciding factor in what we actually get.

Goose LeChance wrote:
It goes like this:

Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"

Designer: "Yes sir"

Given that the loss of options seems to coincide with the switch to doing two sprues in boxes that would once have been three sprues I wonder if it's even more incidental than that. HQ says "drop the amount of plastic per box and we save money!" and the design team shrugs their shoulders and gets on with the minimum bits per model theory.

You could be right. Also the "jigsaw puzzle" design takes up more space, so less room for variant heads/arms/guns/etc

Designers are also hired for their business acumen as well. GW isn't hiring a Francisco Goya to go hide away in a back room and creatively divine works of art that come from pure artistic spirit.

Likely the designers resume presents their skillset as including considerations of materials science and supply chain business fundamentals.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
It goes like this:

Boss: "We need to increase profits. Reduce the number of models in a box, and give them less options, but charge the same price or raise it, also do something about bits sellers"

Designer: "Yes sir"

Given that the loss of options seems to coincide with the switch to doing two sprues in boxes that would once have been three sprues I wonder if it's even more incidental than that. HQ says "drop the amount of plastic per box and we save money!" and the design team shrugs their shoulders and gets on with the minimum bits per model theory.

But then your still looking at Devastators with 12 heavy weapon options, and Havocs with 9, while both kits have 3 sprues. You can explain that discrepancy with the increased size of the new Havocs, but still somebody had to make the decision of: "2 heavy bolters - 1 chaincannon, yeah, that sounds right". That's marketing.

What's the difference in time between the two kits being launched? Could that have seen a change of approach?

Higher price, less value.