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.

I quietly think the GSC book is really quite good, and think people might develop a more hostile take on it if the GSC player base was more like 10-15% of the tournament meta, rather than 2-3%.

Its not Harlequins broken obviously. But I suspect its better than anything released before 2022.

Balance data sheet countering codex creep.
I'm really curious.

Tyel wrote:
I feel Codex creep happens because GW like to "solve" the problems of the game in subsequent books (published 6-9 months later) but don't go back through the old ones until they get a new codex release (or a set of supplement rules).

The problem is GW has seemingly no idea what is powerful, so the outcome of said books to the meta is essentially random - but with a tendency towards an increase over time, because getting free (and better) rules=power.

yes, you can actually see the arms race in offensive and defensive tricks from book to book. Lots of D2, D-1, lots of invuls, no invul save guns, now no roll stuff ect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
GSC the second part of 9th necron codex. Did they draw the short straw durning design or not? It like a if the rules writen by someone that plays a lot of kill team, comes with cool ideas for w40k, but never played w40k in 9th a lot.

I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

 Ordana wrote:
I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

Another words it is not an optimal codex to play right now, which is exactly what necrons were when they came out. It is like in sports, saying that just because you were unlucky to live in the generation of Aleksandr Medved or Hussein Bolt, it somehow explains you never reaching the top, because if they were not there then you would totaly reach the top. Meanwhile you can classify for the olympics or even euro champs, including events where the geniuses do not headline.

Are there worse books then GSC? of course. Can they make life hard for custodes? sure. But it is an army that does horrible vs some match ups, requires 24/7 focus and can't play a soliter game, the way most of the top end armies can.

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

I was referring to the rules changes in the first dataslate: adding CORE to multiple Necron units, the change to DTTFE, etc. Actual rules changes, not just points drops. But agreed on the points in the CA, they're incredibly haphazard and random, seemingly. And usually not enough to make much of a difference.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

But the point that was being made is that if codices are in a general upward trend in power, then new units in new books are likely to be more powerful than older units in older books, and that can create the perception that the new stuff is being made deliberately good (because it is, by virtue of being part of a codex that is being made deliberately powerful).

It might not be pushing particular models, but it stands to reason that new models are likely to be more powerful simply on account of being part of codex creep.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

Another words it is not an optimal codex to play right now, which is exactly what necrons were when they came out. It is like in sports, saying that just because you were unlucky to live in the generation of Aleksandr Medved or Hussein Bolt, it somehow explains you never reaching the top, because if they were not there then you would totaly reach the top. Meanwhile you can classify for the olympics or even euro champs, including events where the geniuses do not headline.

Are there worse books then GSC? of course. Can they make life hard for custodes? sure. But it is an army that does horrible vs some match ups, requires 24/7 focus and can't play a soliter game, the way most of the top end armies can.

Regardless of the balance between codexes, Necrons were not a 'good' codex when they released even seen purely in isolation. Super restrictive core, a cumbersome Protocol system, garbage units and obvious 'best' choices.

There is more to a codex's quality then "can it beat the top lists". GSC is a codex with good internal balance and lots of different builds, Necrons were not.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

But the point that was being made is that if codices are in a general upward trend in power, then new units in new books are likely to be more powerful than older units in older books, and that can create the perception that the new stuff is being made deliberately good (because it is, by virtue of being part of a codex that is being made deliberately powerful).

It might not be pushing particular models, but it stands to reason that new models are likely to be more powerful simply on account of being part of codex creep.

Yea, but in practice they're not consistent with that logic and this is not what others are arguing. And then when it's old models instead of new models they'll say, "oh well, they must have had a lot of excess stock".

People regularly claim that GW buffs some models and nerfs others to sell buffed models. Then "when the sales are done" ( which is another common made up explanation ) they will nerf the buffed and buff the nerfed to sell those models.

That is not the same thing as a general increase in power.

This thought is so pervasive that any rules that might focus on a particular unit elicit this response from "believers". The Tzaangor AOR previewed terrible rules. Yet people complained ( on social media ) that this was yet another attempt by GW to push Tzaangors - let alone support people who like Tzaangors. Might the AOR be good when we can fully inspect the rules? Maybe, but the Phobos AOR didn't make a splash so I don't hold any hope for that.

It's ham-fisted logic that argues both sides of the coin so that they're always right.

I know some people will sperg on this post but....... If you really think that GW does not profit from power creep and uses that in its sales and development models then I would have to say you are the most gullible person in gaming.

GW is a business. Business exist to maximize profit and sales. Power Creep keeps people buying.

GW knows exactly how to fix this. All the codexs being written at once and play testing. But they do not do this.

It is fruitless to talk about balance until the players themselves are ready to punish GW for bad faith development. And that will never happen.

Except Chaos Marines and Guard. They seem to be inverse to the power creep and probably the only defense for " the studio is inept" arguement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea, but in practice they're not consistent with that logic and this is not what others are arguing. And then when it's old models instead of new models they'll say, "oh well, they must have had a lot of excess stock".

People regularly claim that GW buffs some models and nerfs others to sell buffed models. Then "when the sales are done" ( which is another common made up explanation ) they will nerf the buffed and buff the nerfed to sell those models.

That is not the same thing as a general increase in power.

This thought is so pervasive that any rules that might focus on a particular unit elicit this response from "believers". The Tzaangor AOR previewed terrible rules. Yet people complained ( on social media ) that this was yet another attempt by GW to push Tzaangors - let alone support people who like Tzaangors. Might the AOR be good when we can fully inspect the rules? Maybe, but the Phobos AOR didn't make a splash so I don't hold any hope for that.

It's ham-fisted logic that argues both sides of the coin so that they're always right.

You're talking past Catbarf though. The original claim was "power creep in codexes has been an issue every edition". Nobody was talking about new models being buffed (though like Catbarf said, that's a byproduct that happens in some cases -- I think everybody so far has been very careful not to say all cases), but by and large, codex rules get stronger as more codexes get released. That's not cherry picking or deceptive, it's just a 20 year established tradition from GW.

Table wrote:

It is fruitless to talk about balance until the players themselves are ready to punish GW for bad faith development. And that will never happen.

Well how exactly do you propose I do that?
Bear in mind that I'm not going to:
A) Stop buying models I like. Sorry, never going to happen. If they make something I like & I find the price acceptable.... Doesn't matter if I'm playing the particular game they made it for. Gw has no idea WHY I bought the thing. Just that my CC processed. If they take that as license to print crap rules? {shrugs} Nothing I can do about that.
B) Stop playing a game that my friends & I are generally enjoying atm. If/when I stop it'd most likely just be because we rotate through a bunch of games, GW & other, and in the end there's only so much time to game.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' like fact

Not fact, just decades of retail sales trends across multiple mediums, but hey, roll with that cognitive bias all day man, it's the raft to which you've chosen to cling.

By all means, present your evidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By all means, present your evidence.

By all means, get off your butt and do some basic research, such information is at your fingertips. Most of the information you require is available through a basic internet search, but again, that would involve an interest in challenging your own bias.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By all means, present your evidence.

By all means, get off your butt and do some basic research, such information is at your fingertips. Most of the information you require is available through a basic internet search, but again, that would involve an interest in challenging your own bias.

There is no bias; the claim was made without evidence, I require no evidence to dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

But please, explain to me how the Harlequin troupe box sold more in its first year than in all the others combined. Or any other kit of your choosing. Some have been around for 15+ years; they must have sold more in that first year than in the other 14!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is no bias; the claim was made without evidence, I require no evidence to dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

But please, explain to me how the Harlequin troupe box sold more in its first year than in all the others combined.

1) Not my job just because you're too lazy to be bothered.
2) Has nothing to do with a specific box, but standard trends in retail sectors across multiple mediums.
3) I don't care if you want to wallow in ignorance. Enjoy life.

Look if you can't back up your claims just drop it, there's no need to flail around to emphasize that you haven't any evidence to give. I don't think anyone is wallowing in ignorance, but you are certainly thrashing in it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' like fact

Not fact, just decades of retail sales trends across multiple mediums, but hey, roll with that cognitive bias all day man, it's the raft to which you've chosen to cling.

By all means, present your evidence.

There is ample data from all retailers across all similar segments. The vast majority of clothing/shoe sales are on release, that's why last seasons or last years styles are on the clearance rack. It's the same with CDs, books, and movies. It's the same with gaming consoles, PC parts, and video games. The only rare exceptions are things like the Witcher 3 becoming a bestseller a second time around, but that's because a super popular TV show about the book/game was released. I can tell you have never listened to a single earnings call from a retail company because they talk about this phenomenon when explaining why sales were better or worse during a particular quarter. I am not going to spoon feed you 20 years of retail sales data and recorded earnings calls just because you're too lazy to look it up and prefer to continue being contrarian.

It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior. This is widely discussed in college classes about business. Again I'm not spoon feeding you 4 years of business school textbooks because you'll do whatever mental gymnastics necessary to handwave them away, as they're not direct sales data down to the exact second straight from GW. If that's your burden of proof, I'm afraid you'll have to leave disappointed.

My hopes are high...

1st bring back the 4th mode of play from 8th edition, Competitive Play
2nd Introduce W40K's first ever banned & restricted list for Competitive Play
3rd Grab popcorn and watch the mob descend on GW.

And why would there be a mob? Because everyone knows, whether they admit it or not, everything from Competitive Play trickles down.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

I'm being facetious of course.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that things don't sell well when initially released. What I oppose is the claim that miniature kits make the majority of their total sales in the first year. Not to mention dragging up movie releases or clothes sales as if they are analogous to miniatures is absurd; I can confirm that the Big Mac did not make the majority of its sales in the first year but that is equally irrelevant.

But you did get to the point at the end; the claim does not have evidence. There is, as you have established, abundant evidence showing how sales are strong on release of a thing and then taper off. But that was never the point of contention; being raised as a straw man instead of the actual point further establishes that the claim's supporters cannot back it up.

I will continue to dismiss a claim made without evidence as such, because that is basic logical reasoning and nothing more.

Toofast wrote:
It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior.

But the issue is that the obsolescence factor in 40k doesn't exist as it does with other things.

For example, GW are just about to release a new Tyranid book. That makes various Tyranid units more desirable than they have ever been.
So... some people are probably going to buy those kits. (Indeed some already seem to be widely sold out.) Some people will decide today's the day to buy a new Tyranid Army. (And some people are doing this for everything in the range all the time.)

Looking at TV say - nothing stops people going and watching a TV show that came out 5-10 years ago (well - at least by the power of Netflix etc). But if everyone does so, that's in the face of every TV marketing budget on the planet trying to get them to watch stuff being released "today". That show is effectively buried by an avalanche of other content that is competing for your attention.

And this undoubtedly does apply to a degree to GW - and why they go for this codex cycle rather than releasing them all at once. It effective stirs the hype. But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Kits are always sold out when a codex releases because they often get reboxed with new instructions. I don't think the sales of old kits are zero, but they have flat out told us that more than half of a model's sales occur with in the first year of release other than a few select things like SM tac squads. That aligns with everything else we know about retail and human psychology. People seem to be moving the goalposts all over the place just so they have something to argue about.

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Except GW has flat out said this and would be risking charges for lying to investors by lying about something that can be verified with their sales data.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

You're talking past Catbarf though. The original claim was "power creep in codexes has been an issue every edition". Nobody was talking about new models being buffed (though like Catbarf said, that's a byproduct that happens in some cases -- I think everybody so far has been very careful not to say all cases), but by and large, codex rules get stronger as more codexes get released. That's not cherry picking or deceptive, it's just a 20 year established tradition from GW.

I am, because he replied to a post of mine that was debating the particular topic of model creep to which it was claimed that Snaggas were made to sell models and that the Dataslate nerfs were "punishment" for not buying enough Snaggas. CB took it into a different direction of codex creep and I've been trying to re-establish that line to prevent confusion.

Voss wrote:

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Well where are you drawing the line?
I mean the troupes example is a good one. Do you think the majority of Harlequin Armies were set up in 2015 (when I think they were released)?
Obviously not a high seller anyway - but I don't think that would support my lived experience.

By contrast I can imagine say Necrons had a bit pull on their Indomitus half. Every man and his dog has one of those (or at least that's how I justify ending up with one) and maybe they've rounded it out a bit.
But Necrons are not an especially good army. And imo, due to fundamental issues in the way the Codex works, they aren't all that fun or interesting. So I don't think they've stayed very popular - and therefore wouldn't be surprised if the sales have collapsed in relative terms.

The newish Tyranid Warriors were released... 9? years ago. Do you think they sold more in 2013 than the years since? Its possible, but from memory they were kind of trash up until fairly recent times so I'm doubting it. I might have this wrong, but don't the current Termgants and Hormagaunts date from 2001? Do you think they sold more then than in 20 years since? I'm going to say they didn't.

The key to GW's success I think is that their back catalogue is more like a Skyrim. Which shipped something like 10 million copies in a month. 20 millions after 3ish years. And is now at something like 30 million units after a decade. By contrast there are bags of games which may sell a bit in a month - and may as well have never existed half a year later - outside of a big sale or something.

I can't help but notice that NinthMusketeer keeps asking for evidence, and people keep coming back with the unsourced assertion that evidence exists.

I know from my experience in gaming that AAA videogames are typically judged as successes or failures based on their performance in the first two weeks after a release- but certainly not indie gaming, and there are plenty more exceptions to the rule than The Witcher. Fortnite, for example, came back in a big way after a lackluster launch. No Man's Sky was a launch debacle that redeemed itself. Anything released via Early Access is slow income, not a single major launch.

I know writers, too, who make slow and steady income from their previous works. They're certainly not selling all the books they'll ever sell in two weeks.

How does 40K compare? I dunno. Maybe someone should actually post evidence instead of making vapid comments about spoon-feeding.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

I was referring to the rules changes in the first dataslate: adding CORE to multiple Necron units, the change to DTTFE, etc. Actual rules changes, not just points drops. But agreed on the points in the CA, they're incredibly haphazard and random, seemingly. And usually not enough to make much of a difference.

That's true of EVERY point change in that CA. The nerfs were nonsensical in a world where custodes got drops at the same time and the buffs were COMPLETELY irrelevant (again, outside of pushing custodes from 65% winrate to 70%).

CA2022 is arguably the worst rules supplement GW has ever released. It did precisely the opposite of what it was supposedly intended to do (i.e. balance the game) and made you pay like 35$ for the priviledge.

The game as a whole would have been better off if that book had never been released.

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Right. The Chapter House thing had some charts that people are referencing, but I don't remember how they were constructed.

GW gets bumps in sales for an army when a codex hits. I bought Magnus back in 2017 along with some Rubrics. Then I bought more Scarabs and some third party spawn when the 9th edition codex released. GW brought the army into the marketing machine and made people aware and excited to collect Thousand Sons. That's literally all they need to do to get sales. Same goes for Squats right now.

In their financial report they state "38% of sales from new releases and 62% of sales from existing product". These figures have been posted as the same since 2017 and with the same wording, so, I'm not sure how precise they are, but they're likely a good ballpark.

In any case this is why GW loves codex churn and why WHC was good for the business. Awareness = sales.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
The game as a whole would have been better off if that book had never been released.

Well I do like the secondaries and missions...the points could mostly die in a fire though.