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.
Dudeface wrote: Marines are both simultaneously top and bottom tier.
Depends upon what narrative you want to tell.
I believe this is what we call a High Ceiling, Low Floor faction. Good players can craft strong list and do very well, but it is very easy to build a bad list or pilot a list badly to a bad result.
For kicks, I ran some additional stats on The Southampton GT.
Dysartes wrote:The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
Of the 46 Space Marines players, the average placing was 94.146 and the median placing was 96. This tells us that Space Marines were pretty well distributed from top to bottom of the rankings, even given the large number of 193rd placings in the event.
So this event very much shows High Ceiling, Low Floor for Space Marines.
Sums it up I think, but we go back to: are marines needing to be correctly identified by chapter rather than as an amalgamation? I think this is the simplest one to address and it is a resounding yes. It's not a fair statement to say "marines are top of the meta" when they're both the highest and lowest win rate as well iirc based purely on sub-faction. In which case do we move onto "Dark Angels are top of the meta" rather than the general statement of "marines"
Dudeface wrote: Sums it up I think, but we go back to: are marines needing to be correctly identified by chapter rather than as an amalgamation? I think this is the simplest one to address and it is a resounding yes. It's not a fair statement to say "marines are top of the meta" when they're both the highest and lowest win rate as well iirc based purely on sub-faction. In which case do we move onto "Dark Angels are top of the meta" rather than the general statement of "marines"
I don't think so, because nothing is stopping you switching.
No other faction (I think people tried but the lack of players made it sort of meaningless) gets this exception. If a faction has a standard best sub-faction, people run it.
Maybe you love Rogal Dorn (with a moustache you cowards). Maybe you got into 40k circa 3rd edition when White Dwarf was showing off the new Imperial Fists studio army. Maybe you just love yellow. But I'm sorry - if you take IF to a major tournament, you are not taking it seriously. So how can we take the outcome seriously?
Their rules suck. Take I think any army you can build from the SM codex, and run it as something else. Should GW buff IF? Probably. But them being bad doesn't tell us anything about the balance state of Marines when used by top players who want to win who could run anything else in the game.
There also just aren't enough people playing these subfactions to give them useful data by win%. You have people who don't really care, do badly and skew the rate down. You then have people who really do care and do very well - which skews it up. (For example the one person who ran White Scars last weekend, went 4-1, and so got the whole subfaction an 80% win rate.)
There also just aren't enough people playing these subfactions to give them useful data by win%. You have people who don't really care, do badly and skew the rate down. You then have people who really do care and do very well - which skews it up. (For example the one person who ran White Scars last weekend, went 4-1, and so got the whole subfaction an 80% win rate.)
That is false... somewhat.
It is true for the bottom of the barrel chapters (White Scars, Raven Guard, IF, Crimson Fists).
But Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Black Templars, Space Wolves? they have respectable player populations. I mean, there are almost as many Space Wolves players as there are GSC players.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/17 15:43:44
There is an argument for separating out the major Space Marine factions of Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch (honorable mention to Black Templars). They have have a significant count of non-Unique units that separate them from the other chapters. Outside of those, we are dealing with the same "this sub-faction is better than the rest" syndrome we have in every codex.
For the purposes of nerfing a sub faction (Chapter) yes you can subdivide and gently (emphasis on gently) bring that sub-faction down a bit. Others you can give a minor buff to. IH, DA, BA are likely in line for a minor nerf, while WS, Ravens and IF could use a buff.
What I don't want to see is the hamfisted reaction that GW did to Orkz. In other words I don't want Dark Angel players going from Top tier to bottom tier overnight thanks to their only builds being destroyed.
It is true for the bottom of the barrel chapters (White Scars, Raven Guard, IF, Crimson Fists).
But Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Black Templars, Space Wolves? they have respectable player populations. I mean, there are almost as many Space Wolves players as there are GSC players.
This is what I meant. There aren't enough WS, RG, IF, Crimson Fist etc players to make a reasonable judgement whether these are "bottom tier" or not.
If we take the not unreasonable view that they are bad, we are left with the view that the people playing them are likely not as serious about winning.
We don't know how say IF would perform if we forced the best Marine players to play them in the current meta. We can theorise they'd do worse than they'd do with other marine subfactions - or other factions entirely. But its difficult to know how bad, because it hasn't happened, and probably won't.
I mean how good or bad are Orks? Well Goffs seem to be doing reasonably okay. Or at least we see them pop up enough to believe its not a fluke (The ork player base not exactly being huge as a total %.) How many Bad Moons to we see? In round figures... zero? Now this isn't so surprising - because Goffs do a lot to boost the units which are worth taking - and Bad Moons do almost nothing for anything. But unless we said "all Ork Players in the next 10 tournaments can only run Bad Moons" - its hard to make a judgement based on evidence as to how bad Bad Moons are. Because we don't have any.
SemperMortis wrote: For the purposes of nerfing a sub faction (Chapter) yes you can subdivide and gently (emphasis on gently) bring that sub-faction down a bit. Others you can give a minor buff to. IH, DA, BA are likely in line for a minor nerf, while WS, Ravens and IF could use a buff.
What I don't want to see is the hamfisted reaction that GW did to Orkz. In other words I don't want Dark Angel players going from Top tier to bottom tier overnight thanks to their only builds being destroyed.
The problem with Dark Angels and Iron Hands comes from rules on top of rules (Deathwing and the Devastator doctrine). With Blood Angels, it's the terribly efficient units that just they get access to. If White Scars had Sanguinary Guard they'd 100% use them.
This is what I meant. There aren't enough WS, RG, IF, Crimson Fist etc players to make a reasonable judgement whether these are "bottom tier" or not.
If we take the not unreasonable view that they are bad, we are left with the view that the people playing them are likely not as serious about winning.
We don't know how say IF would perform if we forced the best Marine players to play them in the current meta. We can theorise they'd do worse than they'd do with other marine subfactions - or other factions entirely. But its difficult to know how bad, because it hasn't happened, and probably won't.
.
If we talk about big GT, then the number of players who are willing to bring a bad army, of any kind, will always be very low. The fact that NO top player picks something like IF speaks volume about the army. In the past we had examples of Ad mecha, being considered bad. And they were bad for majority of people playing the faction. Top players could win GTs or place high with the army. So GW nerfed them, and then even the top players changed armies to something else.
The main problem stems from the fact, that a bad or new player of good factions has pre build armies to go in to. An eldar, or GSC player knows what to pick. Same with DAs. The armies, through a combination of rules and the data that can be easily found online, are easy or easier to pilot. What is a IF player suppose to do, when the tournament data is showing him 20-30% something win rates? Pick what he likes, try to copy the good marine armies? Well neither is going to work, because the secondaries, special rules and sometimes entire core army units will not be something he can copy.
And the worse the army, the harder it will be come up with anything on their own, especialy as the way to "learn the faction" is going to end with them losing over and over again, often very one sided games. And I don't think there are many people that like that.
This isn't even some special marines thing. Were all the GSC players noobs, up until the last seson came out and suddenly, they stopped being noobs and their win rates exploded? No it was a rules change that, just like in prior sesons favoured necron and sob, now favours them.
If in 10th GW is going to make the game about faction terrain, and IF get a ++3 sv or a ++4 with re-rolls, and this will be linked to how games are won in 10th, IF will suddenly a power house, and the quality of the players both in GT and outside of them won't matter.
In the end marines are inefficient point wise, and rules creeped through every edition. The only factions of marines that do well are those that GW, intentionaly or not, leaves with marine+ rules, special units other marines don't have or unexpected rules interaction between things that GW thought would be "cool" and the communities willingness to run something in 3x5 or 3x10 etc.
Those are thing that will never changed, because are rooted in how GW updates their rules for all faction, how GW writes rules and how GW thinks people should buy and build their armies. Now GW could probably fix it, by employing a team of people who would be looking, on a weekly basis, on performace on lists world wide, and then adjust the rules sets on a bi weekly or monthly schedul. But that would require paying money, and a living rule systems, that could impact sells negativly. So it as probable as world peace and taxes going down.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Nah, the only analytical stance now is whether it's specific subfactions which we know it is.
Overall consensus is likely that marines as a whole occupy the full spectrum of result places, can be top or bottom tier depending on subfaction. Of those DA and IH are king, deathwatch are the whipping boys.
It's also probably reasonable to say this is the most balanced it's been in a long time overall as per usual right before the end.
It's like they try to show us they're quietly capable right when it doesn't matter any more.
10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/03/20 23:56:17
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Tournaments aren't just going to stop once 10th is announced. In fact we know that GW is still going to release a balance dataslate next month so they are definitely not stopping.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Chess is a sport.
If there's a winner and loser, there will be competition, and people WILL make sport of it. That you can't comprehend that doesn't mean it was a failure. If anything, it would've been brilliant if GW only got an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters to blast out the rules instead of the current trash doing it.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Maybe not some local tournies, but bigger tournaments require the purchased rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/21 08:20:59
And given the number of editions of these tournament packs they've released across 9th, you'd think they'd be able to get closer to the right amount to print by now, if only to the point of "not sold out on day of pre-order, with no reprint in sight".
Not expecting them to get it bob on, but maybe so copies actually appear on the shelf for a week, y'know?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
"GW have failed miserably" I cried, as revenue and profits hit record levels, and they sell out of almost everything they release...
To my mind GW have realised there are essentially two markets. The first is people who play the game every other weekend - be that at tournaments (tournament players, boo) or FLGS/Stores/Garages all over the world - and so need rules churn if they aren't to get bored. These players might be kind of targeted for "buy the new hotness that's hot for about 3 weeks" - but they represent such a small share of sales that I don't think that's really the case
And then you have the second group made up of people who frankly almost never play the actual game. But while they are potentially put off by a level of rules churn/complexity they can't hope to follow, they aren't actually impacted by it. If GW keep make good models backed by cool fluff, they'll keep buying.
I'd expect 10th to be relatively clean. It will be targeted - like 8th - at easily getting new people into the hobby and expanding the potential customer base. Balance will likely be all over the place, but that won't matter so much in those early simple days, as people (especially new people) won't be running around with optimised comps. But it won't last.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
I think it succeeded quite well. More iterations for them to figure things out, because it is evident they don't have a ton of institutional knowledge on these things as it was always seat of the pants in the past. In the future I can only hope they have less to fix and changes are just point tweaks. That's probably a bit pie in the sky though.
Mission shakeups are what would really help the game from becoming stale. Yearly would be preferable in the future.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
even if they couid, trying to turn a tabletop game into a sport is a bad joke.
Chess is a sport.
If there's a winner and loser, there will be competition, and people WILL make sport of it. That you can't comprehend that doesn't mean it was a failure. If anything, it would've been brilliant if GW only got an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters to blast out the rules instead of the current trash doing it.
Karol wrote: 10th is going to be so funny to look at, when everything is going to be thrown out of wack 2-3 codex in to the edition.
I get that GW tries to run their game system like a mobile game. Sesons, potential rules behind a pay wall of a monthly subscription. Ton of rules changes that don't matter much, because what matters is the core rules changes that sesons bring etc. It probably generates good money in sales, especialy when so-so armies suddenly skyrocket in to the top of the meta. But with so few new players, one day GW may wake up with too few 40+ years olds willing to support the game. And GW can't just kill w40k, the way they did away with the pre AoS warhammer.
this seasonal thing is probably the worst thing they have done. Absolutely ridiculous for a tabletop game. I pray to whatever that for 10th they move away from this ridiculous eSport-lite crap. It clearly failed miserably.
It didn't fail, GW just can't write rules LOL
There definitely seems to have been a failure in terms of predicting how much stock is required to satisfy the market, given even people who actually go to tournaments haven't been able to get hold of the tournament packs the last couple of times.
Has that actually mattered though? Have any great # of would-be tourney players been turned away for not having the physical book? Have any?
Maybe not some local tournies, but bigger tournaments require the purchased rules.
I didn't ask what the requirement is (I know that).
I asked how many, if any, people have actually been affected by it.
Tyel wrote: "GW have failed miserably" I cried, as revenue and profits hit record levels, and they sell out of almost everything they release...
To my mind GW have realised there are essentially two markets. The first is people who play the game every other weekend - be that at tournaments (tournament players, boo) or FLGS/Stores/Garages all over the world - and so need rules churn if they aren't to get bored. These players might be kind of targeted for "buy the new hotness that's hot for about 3 weeks" - but they represent such a small share of sales that I don't think that's really the case
And then you have the second group made up of people who frankly almost never play the actual game. But while they are potentially put off by a level of rules churn/complexity they can't hope to follow, they aren't actually impacted by it. If GW keep make good models backed by cool fluff, they'll keep buying.
I'd expect 10th to be relatively clean. It will be targeted - like 8th - at easily getting new people into the hobby and expanding the potential customer base. Balance will likely be all over the place, but that won't matter so much in those early simple days, as people (especially new people) won't be running around with optimised comps. But it won't last.
I actually think tournament players are the most frugal of the bunch. And the people at the top spent so much time collecting prizes that their collections are huge. I've seen people who don't play at all with collections ten times mine.
GW's win is having a very public presence of gamers convincing others to join in. People playing in their garage don't influence passers by.
And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/21 15:10:02
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
Wayniac wrote: And have a larger than normal reach due to most "influencers" being tournament players, so they look like they have a louder voice than they really do. With so many youtube vids and stuff being tournament focused it looks like they are more of a majority.
And why is that a problem?
Because it puts the wrong narrative that tournament play should be the focus of the game.
