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.

What I'm about to say may sound like stating the obvious to 99% of you. However I haven't seen it mentioned from this angle here or other places that are talking about this recently accelerating phenomenon at Games Workshop.

The issue I'd like to discuss is the way GW are squatting so many kits in 40K. It's not a secret that many kits have moved to Legends, presumably they'll disappear from there at some point too. Either in 11th Edition or later. There are videos on Youtube (at least one that I've seen anyway) about how GW have launched many new kits for 40K in the last few years but they have also put almost as many into Legends. Kill Team seems to be part of the master plan, GW have already announced that older Kill Teams will be gradually phased out over the years, replaced with new Kill Teams. Presumably these kits that are removed from Kill Team will also leave 40K at some point (even no longer being supported in Legends). It seems that the idea is to keep the 40K range at a certain size but taking a one in one out approach.

This phenomenon isn't exactly new, for those who have been paying attention. It also seems to be hitting the Space Marine range harder than others. Other factions have felt it too though.

So why are GW doing this? To make more money of course. It's been documented that most kits make most of their sales in the first few weeks / months of going on sale. While we can point at many kits which are decades old it's likely that their current annual rate of sale is far less than it was when first released. This is not a trait unique to wargaming of course, the same is true in media and other hobbies. So GW's solution seems to be to build obsolescence into the system: Make some kits obsolete over a period of time and replace them with other kits so that their average rate of sale per kit stays high. GW seem no longer content to replace old kits with new versions of the same kit (note to GW: when are the ugly as sin Catachan Infantry going to get a resculpt?), they're trying to give us more incentive to replace old kits with models that have new rules.


What can we do about it? Suck it up and get on with it I guess, as many of us have been doing with some of GW's questionable tactics for decades now. Of course we can refuse to buy into the model churn and just stick to 10th Edition (or 9th, or 8th, or 2nd, or whatever edition takes your fancy), though this solution isn't practical for everyone. It's not just tournament players that have to stick to the current rules, people who play at gaming stores or clubs might find it difficult to get games if they're not willing to play the most current version of the rules.



OK, so the above has come off as more of an anti-GW rant than I originally intended. The crux of the message is: GW are no longer happy to just update kits, they want new kits with new rules so that we can't use our old models. Like I said at the start this might seem obvious to most of you, and it may have also have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, I just haven't seen it put in quite this way elsewhere.

Discuss!

What can we do about it?

You can decide to be a tournament organizer who runs One Page Rules tournaments, funds them through vendor booths for third party sculpts and prints, and releases campaign packs with background

I guess I should say we can


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your complaint is that GW is profit driven which causes bad decisions. Since you don't own the copyright on the designs in your tournament, you'd obviously be legally enjoined from returning profit and you might avoid those decisions

I think people periodically try to do this with things like Disney characters and it doesnt necessarily go well. Otoh the novels and films Fifty Shades of Grey were initially fanfiction for the Twilight films and novels, which themselves seem like they'd have to be derivative of some other work. Or maybe the Omegaverse is a more relevant reference.

[quote=El Torro 814611 11696572 null

So why are GW doing this? To make more money of course.

Eventually, it leads to burn out for those who have seen a couple of edition changes, and had their armies squatted. I got back in to 40K (after a long absence) at the very end of 7th. I painted up some tactical squads, played a few games, got some assault marines, all the rest.

Then 8th landed, and all the old guys started taking a back seat to the new shiny primaris. In fairness, I bought in quite heavily through 8th, all the Indices, numarines, codices, campaign books, you name it. Then 9th hit, and I started to think, hmmm… seen all this rules/models churn before, what’s up? But, I stuck with it - seemed entertaining, kept it fresh. For a while.

Then 10th, and I’m thinking, I’m done. D/L’ed all the new free rules, looked at my models, looked at my pile of shame, and thought, yeah, not chasing this any more.

So, I haven’t bought a rulebook, codex, model, zip for 10th. Looked at the BA model refresh, said, yeah, fine, I’m good with my kitbashed plastic Dante and Astorath, and my eBay scavenged metal Mephiston/Lemartes/Corbulo.

My oldskool winged Sang Guard are still rocking it. I have some Death Company kitted out with boltguns, chain swords and jump packs, and no, I’m not going to chop their guns off because it’s no longer a legal load out.

My Libby Dread will continue to serve the Emperor, even after death (of his rules).

And you know what?

I don’t feel down about it.

I feel free.





Now, who’s for a game of 7th? (No formations. Or, invisibility).

Don’t all answer at once ;-)

Honestly considering GW are putting Old World back on sale right now I don't think there's any grand masterplan. I think a lot of the choices are often boiling down to short term marketing thinking and might even be the result of inter-departmental resource fighting and limits.

Eg all those FW models in resin are vanishing from sale; is that some master stroke to remove them; or simply a reflection that the FW end can't keep up production of other current lines of models that are selling way faster?

Is it some plan to bring them back as plastic kits in the future; does that plan last or get changed.

There are so many layers and I suspect the reasoning varies over time too.

Heck I think the recent shift to reducing a lot of close combat weapons on a single model to the same profile is a bad move.
AT the same time I realise that if you've got 1 unit with 5 different close combat weapons then that unit is covering 5 different situations on the table. That means its doing a lot and if you want to start introducing new models one good way is to take that jack-of-all-trades and take away those all-trades and limit them and then introduce new models into the slots.

Honestly I both like and dislike it. I like it because it means new models AND potentially less rules bloat because you're not adding a new thing to the rules you've just replacing a generic model which could fill that role with a specific model.

It dislike it because it invalidates some old models and it also can mean some models lose their identity in the game.





That said overall GW keeps putting out awesome models. The armies keep growing (in general); and whilst there 100% ARE some areas that are lagging (yes I'm looking at you Eldar Aspect Warriors) the overall direction is positive.

It's also my casual observation that gamers who are into building, painting and playing with their army are often more robust at accepting the churn and moving forward. Mostly because they've had the enjoyment of the model they built; they still have it to use; and they can get new enjoyment with the fresh models.
Those that are more on the fence tend to be those that are (at least for an army if not in general) in a more holding pattern. Perhaps playing less; buying less etc.... They might well be eyeing up other hobbies or getting focused on other areas of life (by choice or necessity). So they are already a touch "on the way out" and this can be the "straw the broke the camels back."

I'd be interested to know if there's any difference in the moulds they make now vs 24 years ago.

I would not be surprised if their churn is actually partly built around the longevity of the mould and that they've reduced that longevity down to the minimum possible to maximise profit for the cost.

because they may have found that aside for a few core items like marine tactical/intercessor squads, making a mould once and running it out and then making a new unit with a new mould will get a better return than just redoing the mould and selling the same thing.

The mould cost is going to be the same, but the return might not be.

The other costs of design and cutting would still be a factor that the old design didn't worry about.

I just get the impression with the sheer number of one off models they've been making metal moulds for, that they have gotten to a point where they can make throw away metal moulds.

Are there "new" 40k kits that have been taken out of production? I thought only decade old models were affected so far. Which - while still being annoying for those who own them - is much more understandable to me personally. I think it is a shame that Firstborn are getting removed gradually and would prefer to see them just re-sculpted, as a Tactical Marine is the most iconic figure I can think of for 40k.

I know GW removed a load of Stormcast from the last edition's starter box, which seems like a real dick move and I don't understand why there wasn't a bigger outrage about it?

For 40k you can try to find a different rules system to play with your friends once your models are no longer supported via Legends.

To me, the signal GW of today (vs the GW I grew up with) is loud and clear. They just want me to buy the models, and forget about investing into the games themselves.

Do yourself a favour, if you love 40K, pick an edition that speaks to you, and collect everything ever released for it. Now you have something to fall back on with your models, since they will not be supported indefinitely. And unlike the GW of old, you're not really being encouraged to come up with your own rules for the discontinued models.

Production resources are finite. Even with the shiny new factory, there are only so many machines and so many man hours in a day.

And when we take an objective look at it? GW are producing a greater variety of kits than ever before, the vast majority of which are in plastic.

Despite some of the wilder claims in the wider internet, GW are also the only ones with the sales data as to what’s hot and what’s not. The rest is pure speculation

Add in inherently limited warehousing and shelf space? And GW may be the victims of their own success to some degree, producing more kits than they can comfortably store.

As for moving stuff to Legends? Those all tend to be much older kits and/or older designs. Likely victims of the inherent limitations I listed above. Or in the case of Stormcast, pitched as a temporary retirement, couched in background for whatever you think of that, and units which were, largely, a variation on a theme,

And at least they have Legends rules, which is infinitely preferable to them just going away entirely, and being devoid of rules. Ask 2nd Ed Ork players how they felt about losing their Clans, Boarboyz, Snotlings, Shokk Attak Gun, Traktor Kannon, Lifta Droppa, Pulsa Rokkit, Weirdboyz and other stuff in the move to 3rd Ed.

The core issue with this - and a lot of GW decisions - is that they don't think their core customer is an ancient grognard. They think the average player gets into 40k, is committed for 18-24 months (i.e. buys a lot), and then either moves on or has got into something quite niche.

GW's big concern therefore has to be all the ancient kit they've sold. Because on paper, nothing stops them selling a bunch of Space Marines to the parents of a 12-14 year old boy. Who is interested for a little while, but at 14-16 isn't interested, and then sells/hands it over to another 12-14 year old, and rinse repeat forever. Instead of getting 5-7 customers over a ten year period, they only get 1.

So the obvious approach is to stop providing rules for kits they've not sold for a decade. Then stop providing rules for ancient kits that they intend to stop selling (possibly because there's a replacement similar unit.) Finally, with Primaris, it seemed a cynical approach to draining the very extensive Space Marine pile on Ebay etc.

You also have this phenomenon of just... people who are active, versus people who think they are. You have people who bought the Leviathan Box, played 40k every week, expanded out their armies...and are now a year later are bored/done with the hobby. Then you have people who "tried to get back into the game" in 8th. Maybe bought a codex and played twice. Saw 9th disrupted by Covid. Maybe got in one game, oh its a bit bloated/confusing. Now 10th's here, and a year into the edition are umming and aaahing about playing their first game (never mind purchasing anything). You might think you are in the hobby - but from GW's perspective you are invisible.

Tyel wrote:

You also have this phenomenon of just... people who are active, versus people who think they are. You have people who bought the Leviathan Box, played 40k every week, expanded out their armies...and are now a year later are bored/done with the hobby. Then you have people who "tried to get back into the game" in 8th. Maybe bought a codex and played twice. Saw 9th disrupted by Covid. Maybe got in one game, oh its a bit bloated/confusing. Now 10th's here, and a year into the edition are umming and aaahing about playing their first game (never mind purchasing anything). You might think you are in the hobby - but from GW's perspective you are invisible.

Ironically I have never felt quite so 'seen' as with this...

True and its very easy to be active online whilst not being active in person. I do think the edition churn is too fast (and that GW hasn't quite realised that its the big box of models that drives sales rather than the whole new edition of rules); but yes its very easy to end up online-active but real-world inactive.

Or indeed to be sitting there with a finished army that's 5-10 years old and you might have bought 1 or 2 new models for over that time.

Or indeed an unfinished army...

Or several unfinished armies

Tyel wrote:
You also have this phenomenon of just... people who are active, versus people who think they are. You have people who bought the Leviathan Box, played 40k every week, expanded out their armies...and are now a year later are bored/done with the hobby. Then you have people who "tried to get back into the game" in 8th. Maybe bought a codex and played twice. Saw 9th disrupted by Covid. Maybe got in one game, oh its a bit bloated/confusing. Now 10th's here, and a year into the edition are umming and aaahing about playing their first game (never mind purchasing anything). You might think you are in the hobby - but from GW's perspective you are invisible.

I wonder if Covid hadn't happened would 40k games be the strange tourney beasts they are now. 8th was heavily that, but the reasons for fighting a battle now don't even engage me enough to learn them. Was that driven by the only players still buying and doing stuff in 9th being tourney ones, or was it already the plan/trend?

Thanks for the comments all. Of course we're not going to solve anything in this thread, though having a good moan and rampantly speculating is what the internet is all about.

One point that's been covered that I think is worth repeating is the mindset of players. Many people don't want to play against or use models that are In Legends, even if they're not at a tournament which has this as a rule. While we can moan about GW's practices at least they're giving us the option to use them. There isn't really an excuse for a casual gamer to put further restrictions on themselves and the people they play with.

My concern is that eventually GW isn't going to bother updating Legends rules for old kits for new editions. This is speculation on my part though, it may or may not happen.

And yeah, the edition churn is a whole other story, perhaps less easily solved. Even if you allow Legends units in your games there is still a strong incentive to buy into the latest edition (including codices for all your armies).

Look at Necromunda as an example of a game which doesn't (yet) have edition churn. It doesn't stop GW releasing books for it on a very regular basis. To be fair how many books we choose to buy into is up to us.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You also have this phenomenon of just... people who are active, versus people who think they are. You have people who bought the Leviathan Box, played 40k every week, expanded out their armies...and are now a year later are bored/done with the hobby. Then you have people who "tried to get back into the game" in 8th. Maybe bought a codex and played twice. Saw 9th disrupted by Covid. Maybe got in one game, oh its a bit bloated/confusing. Now 10th's here, and a year into the edition are umming and aaahing about playing their first game (never mind purchasing anything). You might think you are in the hobby - but from GW's perspective you are invisible.

I wonder if Covid hadn't happened would 40k games be the strange tourney beasts they are now. 8th was heavily that, but the reasons for fighting a battle now don't even engage me enough to learn them. Was that driven by the only players still buying and doing stuff in 9th being tourney ones, or was it already the plan/trend?

For years fans have cried out at GW to improve game balance; tournaments are basically the only reliable info source GW has because club and home play is so scattershot in terms of what feedback they can get. You've no idea if they are playing the game right, let alone how skilled the players are against each other. Tournaments at least provide a more structured approach; players who should be of decent skill playing each other and should be playing the rules correctly (or at least having standard interpretations).

The core issue is that GW isn't working for tournaments/competitive players. They are also not catering to Narrative players; nor casuals - GW is trying to do all 3 at once but at the same time they are trying to re-build it every 3-6 years for the marketing department; whilst also ensuring all armies get updated each edition (again another big thing people asked for a LONG time),


The result is a bit of a mess. Narrative players think GW is catering to tournaments who think GW is catering to narrative etc... Because in the end GW's approach isn't catering to any group.

Also in theory a good solid rules system that works at the competitive end should be ideal for narrative gaming.

Oh Necromunda does have Churn! Since its return in…2018, I think? We’ve had two or three lists for the core gangs, and four, maybe five subtlety different rule books, incorporating FAQs and other changes.

Arguably worse? GW haven’t always been terribly clear about such differences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for reluctance about Legends? I wonder if that’s a hangover from the days of “opponents permission” for stuff like Forgeworld and Special Characters.

Opinions varied on whether Forgeworld stuff was beardy to be completely fair, and I’m not saying one way or the other. But, as not every army got much, if anything, from Forgeworld, that in itself created a feeling of unfairness. If both players had the option to field say, a particularly deadly anti-tank FA variant? That’s one thing. But when only my opponent has such an option open to them, it would leave me with more considerations for what I might face and have to counter, with no greater choice in units open to me.

 Overread wrote:

For years fans have cried out at GW to improve game balance; tournaments are basically the only reliable info source GW has because club and home play is so scattershot in terms of what feedback they can get. You've no idea if they are playing the game right, let alone how skilled the players are against each other. Tournaments at least provide a more structured approach; players who should be of decent skill playing each other and should be playing the rules correctly (or at least having standard interpretations).

The core issue is that GW isn't working for tournaments/competitive players. They are also not catering to Narrative players; nor casuals - GW is trying to do all 3 at once but at the same time they are trying to re-build it every 3-6 years for the marketing department; whilst also ensuring all armies get updated each edition (again another big thing people asked for a LONG time),

Well they aren't just balancing for a straight meeting engagement fight, they are creating a bunch of game modes and trying? to balance for that. Arguably if they had done any balancing for one static tournie scenario then put suggestions for alternative scenarios but allowed the tourney organisers to worry about the balance for them, it would have been more effective. But for then selling each game mode seems more important than balancing for one. But saying all that figuring out game breaking lists and rapidly getting an army for them appears to be part of the tourney game attraction.

Baltika wrote:
...and had their armies squatted....

This.

My wife finally finished painting her passion project army, Tomb Kings, less than 6 months before AoS launched; whereas the entire army was squatted.
She was so disgusted that she threw it up on ebay and sold the whole thing less than a month later.

And to top it off TK is now one of the featured Old World armies...

Tyel wrote:
The core issue with this - and a lot of GW decisions - is that they don't think their core customer is an ancient grognard. They think the average player gets into 40k, is committed for 18-24 months (i.e. buys a lot), and then either moves on or has got into something quite niche.

But for all we know, they're right. Just because we're old grognards, that doesn't mean most players are.

 Overread wrote:
Also in theory a good solid rules system that works at the competitive end should be ideal for narrative gaming.

In practice, designing for one is orthogonal to the other at best, and actively detrimental at worst. I remember when Warmachine was very popular at my local store, but it wasn't much good for narrative play.

With 10th, my group had to figure out how to implement all those 'within range of one or more objective markers' special abilities when the objectives are something more abstract than a magic token. Characters have next to no options, so no personalized loadouts for you; best I can do is counts-as. Balancing units around their optimal detachments leads to narrative armies varying significantly in power. Weapons having wildly different profiles depending on who's carrying it is great for balance and lousy for casual playability or any sort of narrative consistency. There are a lot of little things about 10th that are designed around the competitive format and not intended to facilitate narrative, some of which you can easily ignore (no allies) and some of which you can't (no options).

This idea that all you need is a great, tight, tournament ruleset and the narrative players will love it too has never been substantiated. Every game is a collection of design compromises, and some compromises to improve competitive play come at the cost of narrative freedom. Tournament play is a useful metric for assessing balance (in that specific context- which does not 100% map to casual play) but we've seen an obvious trend since 8th of tournaments shaping not only how the game is balanced, but how it is designed as well.

Yes there is the tension between the players that provide the recruiting environment and the new buyers who provide the revenue stream!

 catbarf wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Also in theory a good solid rules system that works at the competitive end should be ideal for narrative gaming.

In practice, designing for one is orthogonal to the other at best, and actively detrimental at worst. I remember when Warmachine was very popular at my local store, but it wasn't much good for narrative play.

With 10th, my group had to figure out how to implement all those 'within range of one or more objective markers' special abilities when the objectives are something more abstract than a magic token. Characters have next to no options, so no personalized loadouts for you; best I can do is counts-as. Balancing units around their optimal detachments leads to narrative armies varying significantly in power. Weapons having wildly different profiles depending on who's carrying it is great for balance and lousy for casual playability or any sort of narrative consistency. There are a lot of little things about 10th that are designed around the competitive format and not intended to facilitate narrative, some of which you can easily ignore (no allies) and some of which you can't (no options).

This idea that all you need is a great, tight, tournament ruleset and the narrative players will love it too has never been substantiated. Every game is a collection of design compromises, and some compromises to improve competitive play come at the cost of narrative freedom. Tournament play is a useful metric for assessing balance (in that specific context- which does not 100% map to casual play) but we've seen an obvious trend since 8th of tournaments shaping not only how the game is balanced, but how it is designed as well.

If I was GW I would push for making Combat Patrol the tournament game. Fixed small army lists should theoretically make balancing easier, meaning that wins come down to player skill on the table and not army building. Keep the massive sprawling 2000+ point armies for casual play.

Crispy78 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Also in theory a good solid rules system that works at the competitive end should be ideal for narrative gaming.

In practice, designing for one is orthogonal to the other at best, and actively detrimental at worst. I remember when Warmachine was very popular at my local store, but it wasn't much good for narrative play.

With 10th, my group had to figure out how to implement all those 'within range of one or more objective markers' special abilities when the objectives are something more abstract than a magic token. Characters have next to no options, so no personalized loadouts for you; best I can do is counts-as. Balancing units around their optimal detachments leads to narrative armies varying significantly in power. Weapons having wildly different profiles depending on who's carrying it is great for balance and lousy for casual playability or any sort of narrative consistency. There are a lot of little things about 10th that are designed around the competitive format and not intended to facilitate narrative, some of which you can easily ignore (no allies) and some of which you can't (no options).

This idea that all you need is a great, tight, tournament ruleset and the narrative players will love it too has never been substantiated. Every game is a collection of design compromises, and some compromises to improve competitive play come at the cost of narrative freedom. Tournament play is a useful metric for assessing balance (in that specific context- which does not 100% map to casual play) but we've seen an obvious trend since 8th of tournaments shaping not only how the game is balanced, but how it is designed as well.

If I was GW I would push for making Combat Patrol the tournament game. Fixed small army lists should theoretically make balancing easier, meaning that wins come down to player skill on the table and not army building. Keep the massive sprawling 2000+ point armies for casual play.

I think Combat Patrol events are a great idea, but I think having your big flagship events being just 1 box of models per side is not good marketing. IT also cuts out a huge number of models from the game.
Even fans are like that, which is why 2K armies are a thing and why people want to see armies on the table not squads.

Sure Combat Patrol would be mechanically superior; fit into multiple games in the same timespan more easily and a bunch of other benefits. But its just not the same as having baneblades and knights fighting swarms of orks on the battlefield.

Yeah that's the trade-off in a nutshell.

Potential for better balance vs better spectacle. I don't think it's possible to have both.

I think its possible, its just not possible with how GW approaches writing rules. Again we hit the issue that the biggest barrier to GW having good rules is GW's approach to rules itself.

My view on this is that your hobby shouldn't be too attached to the companies that make miniatures or rules.

My hobby is miniature wargaming. I use whatever rules and models I like.

If the local play community doesn't like that, I need to find someone who does. It's not that hard to recruit a likely friend to play with you, just more effort than existing in a pre-made ecosystem.

The advantage is you never have to care about what the big companies do particularly, and can just rock on with what you have. The disadvantage is you're not part of "the community" and have to make your own, which can be a bit daunting. But it's not that bad once you start.

And with distance, disentangling my emotions from it, it's completely reasonable for GW to be doing some clear outs after this long. They've got a massive range, with piles of minis in it. Stocking that range for the entire globe has to be a nightmare, and has basically sunk other games companies.

Added to that, the creatives working for GW no doubt want to do a bit of their own thing, rather than rehashing Rick Priestley's wonderful ideas from the 1980s for ever. Don't get me wrong, I love Rick Priestley's games to bits, but I can see why the guys in there now want to do their own thing, have their own crack at making a aesthetic and so on.

There are cynical motives on top of it, but I don't discount the creative urge completely just because of that.

I'm still interested in the 40K setting, but I actually find I'm less interested in the Old World as I get older. I always wanted something more Middle Earth than Fantasy 30 Years War, and I'm happy to move on to that, especially now with the wealth of historical and fantasy miniatures available.

It's all upside to opening up your hobby as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: And I've been saying for years that fixed list tournaments are the way to go if you actually want to test player skill at the table, rather than in the spreadsheet.

 Overread wrote:
I think its possible, its just not possible with how GW approaches writing rules. Again we hit the issue that the biggest barrier to GW having good rules is GW's approach to rules itself.

Oh yes. I've been very carefully saying 'the potential for better balance' and not 'better balance' for a reason.

Crispy78 wrote:

If I was GW I would push for making Combat Patrol the tournament game. Fixed small army lists should theoretically make balancing easier, meaning that wins come down to player skill on the table and not army building. Keep the massive sprawling 2000+ point armies for casual play.

Balance isn't the only thing competitive players demand. The thing that tends to kill competitive games faster than imbalance is actually stagnation. Competitively players play an ungodly number of games and if they ever feel like they've seen it all or "solved" it in any sense, they'll jump ship for a new challenge. Combat Patrol takes way too much control away from players without having any more gameplay complexity to provide meaningful choices in game either.