PDA

View Full Version : Space marine chapters and their differences or lack thereof with other armies



Hellebore
15-04-2008, 10:49
As the thread was getting very off topic I will post what I have to say here.

This will probably degenerate into a flamewar and get deleted anyway, but I've already typed it and it would be a waste to not post it.



Damn straight. People are looking at Marines and saying: "look how many releases they get!" without looking at the quality of the releases.

Xenos releases are much bigger than the SM ones. SM ones tend to be "here's your codex, here's your sprue of bits and here's something that's not specific to you but we figured we'd give it to everyone." They're always building onto the existing range.

Ask yourself. If Orks were redone on the same scale as DA with the same number of kits/upgrades - how would the Ork community have reacted? They'd feel shafted at such a half arsed job.

Yet, I'm expected to believe that somehow the DA release is somehow equal?


It's not an equal comparison. When Codex: Bad Moons comes out with a dribble of bits to ADD to the already existing codex ork models, THEN we can compare to Dark Angels.

Space marine chapters, no matter how venerated are nothing more than glorified sub lists bloated out to full codex size. They are a chapter of space marines, that's it. I've bought every codex since 2nd ed and it really hasn't changed much. Most of the 'uniqueness' is in the Special Characters and any special formations/rules they provide.

Before the 2nd ed Angels of Death the Ravenwing was just the name given to the Dark Angel division of bikers. They didn't have any special rules. Before Angels of Death, Blood Angels (well, the WD article came first) had never heard of death company.

Even GW UK lists all the marine chapters in the 40k section of the website under the title "Space Marines". When someone peruses the GW website they see that Dark Angels are just a type of space marine, not that Dark Angels are a type of ARMY. Because they aren't, they're just a slightly different way of playing the same army.

Compare the releases for Codex: Orks to the releases for Codex: Space Marines when it last came out. The orks don't even have a glorified sublist-cum-codex to compare to the Dark Angels.

And don't tell me that the Dark Angel models are completely unusuable by other marine players, cause I have at least one conversion to prove you wrong and know many with marine armies with multiple.

I definitely can't sub a dark angels veteran squad in for some nobs, but I can for a 'vanilla' marine chapter. Just as a hypothetical Bad Moon Klan nob mob could be subbed in for a 'vanilla' ork army.

Apart from which, it's been an extremely long time since the last ork codex was released with only CoD to add 1 big mek and 1 kommando unit in all the time.

Each new marine codex gives them a chance to release marine-generic units they haven't done yet. Take the drop pod for example. EVERYONE has been saying that it makes sense to release it with the next marine chapter codex.

No one said it should be held off for the next 5 years until Codex: Space Marines is actually released. No, because marine chapters are sublists of Codex Marines and use most of the same units. Thus the 'parent' army (although you don't need the parent list anymore) still gets models added to it for years simply because there are marine chapter codicies being released in the meantime. cf Librarians with the Dark Angels and Chaplains I believe with Black Templars.

The orks had no sublist codicies being released in the interim so ALL (or most) the miniatures they needed were released when it was updated.

Give me 4 Klan codicies over 7 years with small releases including parent codex compatible models and there will be parity.


None of the above is aimed at denigrating marines (considering the number I have and the Battle Company I just bought) because I like them.

I just really don't like the preferential treatment. The closest any army got to the space marine chapter sublist was Codex: Craftworlds and it got canned later anyway. The argument 'well you can just use Codex: Eldar to create Saim Hann so you don't need a codex' applies equally to marines. Ravenwing ride bikes for the Dark Angels. Thus any unit of bikes in the Dark Angel army you have are Ravenwing. They don't NEED special rules.

Saim Hann's Wild Riders had just as much background about their awesome riding skillz as the Ravenwing, so if the Ravenwing get soopadoopa special rules and new models why don't the wild riders?

Because GW chose to do it that way. Not because there is some cosmic fundamental reason that Ravenwing are "more differenter" than normal bikers and Saim Hann wild riders aren't. They are both distinct, unique thematic units from two different armies.

One just happened to be born a Space Marine and the other didn't.

For every space marine chapter codex there should be an Ork Klan, eldar Craftworld, Tau Sept, Guard Regiment, or Tyranid Hive Fleet codex released.

Hellebore

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 10:52
I deleted my post in the off-topic thread aswell, but i don't need to retype it here, since Hellebore already exactly said (point for point), what i was trying to say myself.

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 11:06
One addition: Every of the 1000 Space Marine chapters could get an own chapter, as long as non SM armies get updated as frequently as well. The problem is not SM having different codizes, it's SM codizes replacing timeslots of other codizes, resulting in 10 year old, totally outdated codizes for 3rd edition!

Trogdor
15-04-2008, 11:24
Whilst I agree with the thrust of your argument, perhaps the reason why GW decided to release a plastic DA kit in particular (apart from the obvious commercial reason) was as a result of the diminished availability of the old robed metal DA bodies. Although, viewing things from a slightly more cynical point of view the plastic kit may be the reason why the older DA models are harder to come by. Meh, just flamed myself there, really!
Given that we are approaching 5th ed they really should sort out those armies still using the 3rd ed mini range and codex as opposed to yet more Marines of a different iteration.

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 11:24
As the thread was getting very off topic I will post what I have to say here.

This will probably degenerate into a flamewar and get deleted anyway, but I've already typed it and it would be a waste to not post it.

Let us hope for good honest debate rather than hyperbole and flaming. I think you have set your stall out nicely, so let us hope the rest of us can follow your lead and play in a friendly manner. :)




It's not an equal comparison. When Codex: Bad Moons comes out with a dribble of bits to ADD to the already existing codex ork models, THEN we can compare to Dark Angels.

Okay, fair point (to be returned to later).


Space marine chapters, no matter how venerated are nothing more than glorified sub lists bloated out to full codex size. They are a chapter of space marines, that's it. I've bought every codex since 2nd ed and it really hasn't changed much. Most of the 'uniqueness' is in the Special Characters and any special formations/rules they provide.

Before the 2nd ed Angels of Death the Ravenwing was just the name given to the Dark Angel division of bikers. They didn't have any special rules. Before Angels of Death, Blood Angels (well, the WD article came first) had never heard of death company.

Even GW UK lists all the marine chapters in the 40k section of the website under the title "Space Marines". When someone peruses the GW website they see that Dark Angels are just a type of space marine, not that Dark Angels are a type of ARMY. Because they aren't, they're just a slightly different way of playing the same army.

Yet the popluarity remains, hence the number of variant SM codexes. People buy what they want to buy - that which excites them. This question can potentially only be answered by asking how many C: SM (excluding all 'variant' Marines codexes) are sold, in comparison to any other non-SM codex. It is this popularity that fuels product development, rather than development fuelling popularity. Whenever a new codex is updated it gets to be the 'poster boy' of WD and the website, so that label is disingenuous when casually thrown at Space Marines as the 'poster boys' of WH40K. What is wrong with them being the most popular, and therefore having the most attention, if it sustains GW as a business and therefore helps sustain the GW hobby as a whole.

Think of it this way - if GW took a purist approach and did just one SM book for all armies, and if hypothetically we saw a sales downturn and further financial woe for the company, would that be seen as a good thing? I think not.


Compare the releases for Codex: Orks to the releases for Codex: Space Marines when it last came out. The orks don't even have a glorified sublist-cum-codex to compare to the Dark Angels.

It seems as though Orks had a healthy range of releases. What did we see for C: SM? Terminators, SM Commander kit, Command Squad. What else that wasn't relased as a splash alongside Apocalypse or Medusa?


And don't tell me that the Dark Angel models are completely unusuable by other marine players, cause I have at least one conversion to prove you wrong and know many with marine armies with multiple.

Who claims they are unusable? They require work (to a greater or lesser extent) to use them, and often non-DA players may only find a couple of usable bits on the sprues. The Orks have the advanatge that it is appropriate to convert almost anything other than Tyranids into their equipment. They are a converters paradise in the ease with which other armies' components can be raided. They have the ultimate bitz box really. ;)


I definitely can't sub a dark angels veteran squad in for some nobs, but I can for a 'vanilla' marine chapter. Just as a hypothetical Bad Moon Klan nob mob could be subbed in for a 'vanilla' ork army.

Would there be sufficient demand for said Bad Moon Nob squad (and Goff, Death Skull, Evil Sunz, Blood Axe and Snakebite, because all should have their own Nobs if Bad Moons do) to be sculpted? How much investment for particulalry niche units would be required? The DA Veterans can be used for Tactical squads, Devastator squads, in DA, out of DA and so on and so on - not a like for like comparison.

Which brings me back to the beginning point you made which I said I'd return to - your comparison isn't like for like.


Apart from which, it's been an extremely long time since the last ork codex was released with only CoD to add 1 big mek and 1 kommando unit in all the time.

They have been hard done by I will certainly agree. But to call for penalistion of the simplest, most popular and most profitable army in the expectation that those armies that are poorly serviced will benefit is a simplistic view of the matter, surely?


Each new marine codex gives them a chance to release marine-generic units they haven't done yet. Take the drop pod for example. EVERYONE has been saying that it makes sense to release it with the next marine chapter codex.

And they said it made sense to release it with C: DA and Apocalypse - they didn't release it though, did they?


No one said it should be held off for the next 5 years until Codex: Space Marines is actually released. No, because marine chapters are sublists of Codex Marines and use most of the same units. Thus the 'parent' army (although you don't need the parent list anymore) still gets models added to it for years simply because there are marine chapter codicies being released in the meantime. cf Librarians with the Dark Angels and Chaplains I believe with Black Templars.

Models which benefit multiple popular armies. If they become unpopular the support won't be forthcoming from GW, of that I have no doubt.


The orks had no sublist codicies being released in the interim so ALL (or most) the miniatures they needed were released when it was updated.

I agree they needed new models just for the sake of fairness, but some of the new models have benefitted from GW's technology improving, which has taken time - look at the improved Boyz sprue and the new sprues: they have inspired me to do an Ork army.


Give me 4 Klan codicies over 7 years with small releases including parent codex compatible models and there will be parity.

Why does parity have to exist except in philospohical terms? GW doesn't operate on tenets of philosophical fairness, it operates as a business which takes decisions intended to foster sustainability or growth.



None of the above is aimed at denigrating marines (considering the number I have and the Battle Company I just bought) because I like them.

I like Orks too!


I just really don't like the preferential treatment. The closest any army got to the space marine chapter sublist was Codex: Craftworlds and it got canned later anyway. The argument 'well you can just use Codex: Eldar to create Saim Hann so you don't need a codex' applies equally to marines. Ravenwing ride bikes for the Dark Angels. Thus any unit of bikes in the Dark Angel army you have are Ravenwing. They don't NEED special rules.

Well special rules were need to create a unique formation that is still quite restrictive when compared to options in C: SM, so I have to disagree here.


Saim Hann's Wild Riders had just as much background about their awesome riding skillz as the Ravenwing, so if the Ravenwing get soopadoopa special rules and new models why don't the wild riders?

If it were felt to appropriate to the business model, I am sure they would. Again you apply a philosophical or ethical test of fairness to a business. business responds to demand and attempts supply appropriately to meet said demand at the best price.


Because GW chose to do it that way. Not because there is some cosmic fundamental reason that Ravenwing are "more differenter" than normal bikers and Saim Hann wild riders aren't. They are both distinct, unique thematic units from two different armies.

Nothing to do with unit uniqueness, I agree. Business decsion purely. More Eldar players = more Eldar codexes. The demand isn't there.


One just happened to be born a Space Marine and the other didn't.

For every space marine chapter codex there should be an Ork Klan, eldar Craftworld, Tau Sept, Guard Regiment, or Tyranid Hive Fleet codex released.

Hellebore

Why? Again the call for parity. An artificial construction for a business if ever followed through.

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 11:26
One addition: Every of the 1000 Space Marine chapters could get an own chapter, as long as non SM armies get updated as frequently as well. The problem is not SM having different codizes, it's SM codizes replacing timeslots of other codizes, resulting in 10 year old, totally outdated codizes for 3rd edition!

Since no schedule has ever been publicly announced by GW outside of their limited 3/6 month window, and we have only ever been party to rumour of schedules, no slots have ever been taken by Space Marine releases.

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 11:39
Oh come on. They had 10 years to release Orks or Dark Eldars. Why didn't they do so? Because they worked on Marine armies. They may be more profitable, but that doesn't mean, that this is a GOOD thing or an excuse to totally neglect players of a certain armies like GW does. They should reschedule their priorities a bit. Instead of wasting time on another iteration of Space Marine veteran models (new players won't care) they should make Dark Eldar models. Throw them a bone. Make some mid-releases (Gargoyles for Tyranids, eg. Everyone wants them.)
Hey at least they should make DROP POD models, instead of more rehashs of existing models.
The funny thing is, that GW doesn't manage to make the models, people really are asking for, not even for the popular armies. Just take HE for fantasy. Most people hate the core models. But instead of redoing them, they redesigned models, that are already nice. And knowing, that people hate they core models, they changed the whole army organisation of HE, so people don't have to take as many core but more of the new special slots. That's totally backwards!

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 11:46
Oh come on. They had 10 years to release Orks or Dark Eldars.

Why didn't they do so? Because they worked on Marine armies.

So they have only worked on Marines in that 10 years? So we haven't seen Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, Imperial Guard (twice; three times if you include Catachans), Tyranids (twice), Eldar (who also got CWE for a while in that time), Necrons, Tau (twice) and soon Daemons in that time. Should you not equally blame all of those other armies as you do SM?


They may be more profitable, but that doesn't mean, that this is a GOOD thing or an excuse to totally neglect players of a certain armies like GW does. They should reschedule their priorities a bit. Instead of wasting time on another iteration of Space Marine veteran models (new players won't care) they should make Dark Eldar models.
Hey at least they should make DROP POD models, instead of more rehashs of existing models.

You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Supply and demand does not operate on moral principle.

New players won't care? You have surveyed them to ask? What about established players/hobbyists?

If any kits and codexes (SM or otherwise) are purchased in numbers that show they are successful and popular, then development of those products is not a waste of time.

Brother Loki
15-04-2008, 11:53
When marine sales are more than all the other armies put together it does rather make sense to focus your resources on those, surely?

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 11:59
So they have only worked on Marines in that 10 years? So we haven't seen Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, Imperial Guard (twice; three times if you include Catachans), Tyranids (twice), Eldar (who also got CWE for a while in that time), Necrons, Tau (twice) and soon Daemons in that time. Should you not equally blame all of those other armies as you do SM?

You know exactly what i mean. Instead of creating varient lists, they could have updated the problem childs of 40K. Nids, Eldar and Chaos got the right amount of treatment. Things, that still have a 3rd edition codex, are outdated! They were outdated for 4th edition and now they are outdated even more. Bring Marines back to the update level of Nids, Eldar and Chaos, while at the same time, bring IG, Necrons and DE up-to-date. That's all that is needed.
Every army should have it's own codex for the current edition of 40K, then we can talk about expanding lists into variants like Daemons or even making a whole new edition (which probably is only there, because GW needs the money and a reason to release Codex Space Marines again).




You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Suplly and emand does not operate on moral principle.

Well actually, what you are now saying is this: "Do not complain. You don't have a right to have an opinion about certain things, because it is as it is."
It's the killing blow for EVERY kind of decision. "These are the facts, so just suck it up."
I find this rather offending.



New players won't care? You have surveyed them to ask? What about established players/hobbyists?

New players don't care if their Veterans are made in 2004 or 2006. They don't even know the difference!
And you are talking about established players/hobbyists? Maybe those, that desperately want an update for their outdated armies? Or those hobbyists, that put a lot of work into LatD conversions?

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 12:15
You know exactly what i mean. Instead of creating varient lists, they could have updated the problem childs of 40K. Nids, Eldar and Chaos got the right amount of treatment. Things, that still have a 3rd edition codex, are outdated! They were outdated for 4th edition and now they are outdated even more. Bring Marines back to the update level of Nids, Eldar and Chaos, while at the same time, bring IG, Necrons and DE up-to-date. That's all that is needed.

Actually, all I can sense from your posts is a resentment towards SM, so I wouldn't presume to know what you mean.

What I was saying was that Orks and Dark Eldar being so long in being updated isn't down to Space Marine releases alone, but has been impacted by all releases in the interim if we accept that any releases have an impact at all on those yet to be relased updates.

Codex: Space Marines are at the level of update of those armies you listed, as are Codex Dark Angels and Blood Angels.

Choas Space Marines have actually had the most attention over 3rd and 4th edition and so are a unique case.



Well actually, what you are now saying is this: "Do not complain. You don't have a right to have an opinion about certain things, because it is as it is."
It's the killing blow for EVERY kind of decision. "These are the facts, so just suck it up."
I find this rather offending.

You are offended because I make a distinction between moral and economic imperitive? What is so offenisve in that? I didn't comment on anyone's right to complain. You have inferred that.

As for your right to complain, write to GW, and encourage others to do so. I recently wrote to Jervis Johnson to express my concern about the relative lack of non-Imperial armies in the game, and I got a response. The response was not what I wanted to hear, but it shows that my point was listened to as an explanation was offered.

They are not going to be swayed by internet spamming, but sales and salient commentray via mail may do the trick.



New players don't care if their Veterans are made in 2004 or 2006. They don't even know the difference!
And you are talking about established players/hobbyists? Maybe those, that desperately want an update for their outdated armies?

Don't new players care? "Oh man, I gotta play with those old models whilst new stuff is coming out for army X? That sucks". I think you are making a sweeping generalisation about new hobbyists - they may not immediately know the difference, but they can soon find out. Should they be treated any differently than established hobbyists? To suggest so is disdainful of their right to participate and benefit in the hobby equally.

Varath- Lord Impaler
15-04-2008, 12:20
You know exactly what i mean. Instead of creating varient lists, they could have updated the problem childs of 40K. Nids, Eldar and Chaos got the right amount of treatment. Things, that still have a 3rd edition codex, are outdated! They were outdated for 4th edition and now they are outdated even more. Bring Marines back to the update level of Nids, Eldar and Chaos, while at the same time, bring IG, Necrons and DE up-to-date. That's all that is needed.

You cant be 'more outdated' in some kind of a chronological pissing contest. I would like them to bring those armies up to date too. But what about Space wolves? Dont they deserve to be up to date aswell?


Well actually, what you are now saying is this: "Do not complain. You don't have a right to have an opinion about certain things, because it is as it is."
It's the killing blow for EVERY kind of decision. "These are the facts, so just suck it up."
I find this rather offending.

Well you have the right to be offended...i guess.

What he is saying is perfectly logical. From a buisness perspective it is not right to add morals in that way.



New players don't care if their Veterans are made in 2004 or 2006. They don't even know the difference!
And you are talking about established players/hobbyists? Maybe those, that desperately want an update for their outdated armies?

So why does it have to cater to new players?

Varath- Lord Impaler
15-04-2008, 12:21
As for your right to complain, write to GW, and encourage others to do so. I recently wrote to Jervis Johnson to express my concern about the relative lack of non-Imperial armies in the game, and I got a response. The response was not what I wanted to hear, but it shows that my point was listened to as an explanation was offered.


Would you mind posting or PM ing this to me? I am Intrigued.

pookie
15-04-2008, 12:23
Before the 2nd ed Angels of Death the Ravenwing was just the name given to the Dark Angel division of bikers. They didn't have any special rules. Before Angels of Death, Blood Angels (well, the WD article came first) had never heard of death company.


iirc they were known in the background and were featured on the 40K companion manual that came out for Rt iirc, they also had White Chaplins then. (although i agree they were not realised in model form till 2nd ed)

but lets face it SM are the bread and butter of GW, without SM players, the company would have folded long ago.

CrimsonTider
15-04-2008, 12:44
Actually, I tend to agree with both sides. I would like to see other army lists and codeci updated more often. It makes things difficult when trying to play in WH40K 4.0 with a WH40K 3.0 list. We all want new rules, new models, and new options for our favorite lists, and GW seems to take a really long time to make changes. We have all seen that GW is certainly not the most efficiant organization our there, as even their newest releases are not well written or even well spell-checked. Editting seems to no great bearing on who does what over there at GW HQ. And if someone person is in charge, they are letting things kind of slip a gear every once in a while, aren't they? It would be nice if they could hire an efficiency expert or two and streamline the process a bit, while maintaining a better quality and consistency.

On the other hand, marines are certainly great sellers, both for new and veteran players. Any time a new marine model/kit goes on sale, it is gobbled up quickly, and any marine release can be used in any other mairne army list with just a small bit of conversion. With the predominance of the new plastics, converting is really easy as well. So it makes good business sense to cater to the best selling range. Over here in Alabama, we have two dominant football teams; Auburn and Alabama. A buddy of mine works for a clothing manufacturer who makes shirts and jerseys for fans of both teams. Even though Auburn has been by far the more dominant team in the last 10 years, they make 4 times more Alabama apparel than they do Auburn simply because Alabama fans will buy more stuff. In business you go where the money is.

So, if they release new marine models and 100 people buy them, then they release new eldar models and 20 people buy them, they are certainly making more profit from the marines than the eldar. In fact, in a lot of cases like this, the increased revenue from one type of sales allows for the increased production of lesser sales, ie: More marine sales increases profits which increases the availability of money to put into less profitable lines such as orks/dark eldar, etc...

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 12:56
What I was saying was that Orks and Dark Eldar being so long in being updated isn't down to Space Marine releases alone, but has been impacted by all releases in the interim if we accept that any releases have an impact at all on those yet to be relased updates.
Codex: Space Marines are at the level of update of those armies you listed, as are Codex Dark Angels and Blood Angels.

You are completely missing the point. There should be no Codex Dark Angels or Blood Angels in the first place, so there would be no need to update them.
It's all Space Marines. Space Marines get updated with Codex Dark Angels and Codex Blood Angels. They are using the same models, they are using the same rules and most of the same units. Everything else could be solved with variation lists in a Codex Space Marines or a trait system. There is no need for Dark Angels to be released as a Codex, while DE are still waiting.



You are offended because I make a distinction between moral and economic imperitive? What is so offenisve in that? I didn't comment on anyone's right to complain. You have inferred that.

You told me, that i can't find something "good or bad". So you are telling me, what i should think or not. I realize, that there are economic reasons, but it is my right to say, that i find those "bad". Just as rapes and other atrocities are a part of warfare. I can find this "bad" and not just say "Well, that's the way it is."



As for your right to complain, write to GW, and encourage others to do so. I recently wrote to Jervis Johnson to express my concern about the relative lack of non-Imperial armies in the game, and I got a response. The response was not what I wanted to hear, but it shows that my point was listened to as an explanation was offered.

They are not going to be swayed by internet spamming, but sales and salient commentray via mail may do the trick.

I don't think that they listen to anything from the community, so sending a letter really is a waste of time. They sure know, what the people are saying, they just don't care.



Don't new players care? "Oh man, I gotta play with those old models whilst new stuff is coming out for army X? That sucks". I think you are making a sweeping generalisation about new hobbyists - they may not immediately know the difference, but they can soon find out. Should they be treated any differently than established hobbyists? To suggest so is disdainful of their right to participate and benefit in the hobby equally.
There is a quality difference between Orks from 2nd edition and 5th edition, everybody can see. I can't see a major quality step from one Space Marine release of the same kind of model after 2004.

Kulgur
15-04-2008, 12:59
Just so people know roughly when each codex came out, I'm going to post my list of Codex copywrite years, alas, I lack a single Marine book so maybe somebody can fill those in

Orks (current): 2007
Orks (previous): 1999
WitchHunters: 2003
Tau Empire: 2005
Necrons: 2002
Imperial Guard: 2003
Dark Eldar (2nd Ed): 2002

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 13:09
You are completely missing the point. There should be no Codex Dark Angels or Blood Angels in the first place, so there would be no need to update them.
It's all Space Marines. Space Marines get updated with Codex Dark Angels and Codex Blood Angels. They are using the same models, they are using the same rules and most of the same units. Everything else could be solved with variation lists in a Codex Space Marines or a trait system. There is no need for Dark Angels to be released as a Codex, while DE are still waiting.

A few questions:
- why should there be no Codex Blood Angels or Dark Angels in the first place if demand exists for them?
- if traits are going (as rumour has it), your solution doesn't work, so what alternative sloutions do you have?
- you focus on SM releases but overlook non-SM releases in the time Dark Eldar have been waiting. Tau have had two codexes in that time, as have Tyranids. Surely those are equally important factors, yet you don't attack the fact that those codexes have appeared.



You told me, that i can't find something "good or bad". So you are telling me, what i should think or not. I realize, that there are economic reasons, but it is my right to say, that i find those "bad". Just as rapes and other atrocities are a part of warfare. I can find this "bad" and not just say "Well, that's the way it is."

Read my post again. Please. Please don't infer your own meaning, but read what was posted.

I stated that business functions on factors of supply and demand, not moral imperitive. Please do not take my point out of context to make a disingenuous point and claim a perosnal attack, or claim that I say that you or anyone cannot have a moral view.


I don't think that they listen to anything from the community, so sending a letter really is a waste of time. They sure know, what the people are saying, they just don't care.

If you don't voice your opinion you will not be heard. How can you voice your opinion? Well how about:

- writing a letter (mine got a response about matters realting to this issue), it also highlights the issue directly to the designers
- buying more non-SM miniatures

What won't have an effect:
- doing nothing but posting on the internet about the problem.



There is a quality difference between Orks from 2nd edition and 5th edition, everybody can see. I can't see a major quality step from one Space Marine release of the same kind of model after 2004.

I really don't see your point here.

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 13:11
Just so people know roughly when each codex came out, I'm going to post my list of Codex copywrite years, alas, I lack a single Marine book so maybe somebody can fill those in

Orks (current): 2007
Orks (previous): 1999
WitchHunters: 2003
Tau Empire: 2005
Necrons: 2002
Imperial Guard: 2003
Dark Eldar (2nd Ed): 2002


Orks (current): 2007
Orks (previous): 1999
WitchHunters: 2003
Tau Empire: 2005
Necrons: 2002
Imperial Guard: 2003
Dark Eldar (2nd Ed): 2002
Daemonhunters 2002
Tyranids 2004
Dark Angels 2006
Eldar 2006
Black Templars 2005
Space Marines 2004
Chaos Space Marines 2007

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 13:34
A few questions:
- why should there be no Codex Blood Angels or Dark Angels in the first place if demand exists for them?

There should be no BA and DA codizes on EXPENSE of other codizes, which is the case. It's like Toyota having people to wait for their cars to be repaired for a very long time, while the best selling cars get new models all the time. It may make sense business-wise, but it is very bad treatment of customers and an overall ****** service. Other companies can't afford the behaviour GW is showing right now. And GW is not doing well. Coincidence?



- if traits are going (as rumour has it), your solution doesn't work, so what alternative sloutions do you have?

Use traits.
My solution of the problem does not work, because GW did decide to not solve (or even acknowledge) the problem. That doesn't make my solution a bad one.



- you focus on SM releases but overlook non-SM releases in the time Dark Eldar have been waiting. Tau have had two codexes in that time, as have Tyranids. Surely those are equally important factors, yet you don't attack the fact that those codexes have appeared.

I already told you before: The treatment of Tau/Tyranids and Eldar is the way it should be. That just leaves IG, Dark Eldar, Witchhunters, Daemon Hunters and Necrons in need of a 4th edition codex, while you should consider the Ork codex a 5th edition codex, so they didn't get a 4th edition codex either. That's about 50% of the races that are listed on the GW homepage as major races...



Read my post again. Please. Please don't infer your own meaning, but read what was posted.

I stated that business functions on factors of supply and demand, not moral imperitive. Please do not take my point out of context to make a disingenuous point and claim a perosnal attack, or claim that I say that you or anyone cannot have a moral view.


So what was your meaning? I told you, i think this is "bad". You told me:

"You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Suplly and emand does not operate on moral principle."

So what was the intend of the post? Were you telling me, that i should not think of that situation as "good or bad" or not? Or was it a statement like "my cat is eating right now", having no relevance to the discussion? I doubt that.



If you don't voice your opinion you will not be heard. How can you voice your opinion? Well how about:
- writing a letter (mine got a response about matters realting to this issue), it also highlights the issue directly to the designers
- buying more non-SM miniatures

Do you really, really, REALLY think, that GW does care...?
Oh, i won't be buying more non-SM minis, i will be buying less GW minis. (FoW is a nice game and the company seems to be having great community support).




I really don't see your point here.

Really? Okay. The point is this: Space Marine Veterans from let's say 2004 look great. So do those from 2006. They just have different poses. A newbie in the hobby doesn't really. 2006 models will replace 2004 models and he will buy what is there. Veterans might buy those models or not. They already have Veterans, so why more?
But the newbie probably won't buy any Dark Eldar models, because they look like crap (because they are so old). But maybe he will buy great looking new Dark Eldar models, while many Dark Eldar players will replace their existing range, because, you know, the old models suck.

Varath- Lord Impaler
15-04-2008, 13:43
There should be no BA and DA codizes on EXPENSE of other codizes, which is the case. It's like Toyota having people to wait for their cars to be repaired for a very long time, while the best selling cars get new models all the time. It may make sense business-wise, but it is very bad treatment of customers and an overall ****** service. Other companies can't afford the behaviour GW is showing right now. And GW is not doing well. Coincidence?


What have my Guardsmen lost? GW support. What have they gained? Forgeworld Support :D


Use traits.
My solution of the problem does not work, because GW did decide to not solve (or even acknowledge) the problem. That doesn't make my solution a bad one.


It does, actually. Traits is a bad idea since it creates way too many permutations to playtest effectively.


So what was your meaning? I told you, i think this is "bad". You told me:

"You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Suplly and emand does not operate on moral principle."

So what was the intend of the post? Were you telling me, that i should not think of that situation as "good or bad" or not? Or was it a statement like "my cat is eating right now", having no relevance to the discussion? I doubt that.


He is saying exactly what he said. That Buisness decisions are not made off morale imperative. That is how it is, you can complain or you can not, it hardly makes a difference.


Do you really, really, REALLY think, that GW does care...?
Oh, i won't be buying more non-SM minis, i will be buying less GW minis. (FoW is a nice game and the company seems to be having great community support).



Ok, goodbye.

Theres plenty of fans left :)

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 13:48
What have my Guardsmen lost? GW support. What have they gained? Forgeworld Support :D


So? Expensive, not widely available (try ordering internationally. And then having a problem with your order...), not applicable for other races and in many cases not tournament legal.



It does, actually. Traits is a bad idea since it creates way too many permutations to playtest effectively.

Really? Then just use fixed traits, that represent Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Black Templar and Space Wolves. Or do varient lists like in the old Chaos Codex.



He is saying exactly what he said. That Buisness decisions are not made off morale imperative. That is how it is, you can complain or you can not, it hardly makes a difference.

And i was saying exactly what i said. That i think this is a bad situation. That is how it is, you can post about or not, it hardly makes a difference.

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 13:49
There should be no BA and DA codizes on EXPENSE of other codizes, which is the case. It's like Toyota having people to wait for their cars to be repaired for a very long time, while the best selling cars get new models all the time. It may make sense business-wise, but it is very bad treatment of customers and an overall ****** service. Other companies can't afford the behaviour GW is showing right now. And GW is not doing well. Coincidence?

Except, to reverse your point, all other armies and codexes are dependent on the success of various Space Marine iterations to support the rest of the GW hobby.

Nothing to do with coincidence. Costs have risen, investment was required, GW doesn't market outside of those 'in the know' and the LotR bubble has burst.



Use traits.
My solution of the problem does not work, because GW did decide to not solve (or even acknowledge) the problem. That doesn't make my solution a bad one.

Maybe not a bad one, just possibly unlikely.



I already told you before: The treatment of Tau/Tyranids and Eldar is the way it should be. That just leaves IG, Dark Eldar, Witchhunters, Daemon Hunters and Necrons in need of a 4th edition codex, while you should consider the Ork codex a 5th edition codex, so they didn't get a 4th edition codex either. That's about 50% of the races that are listed on the GW homepage as major races...

So they have to make difficult decisions as to how to allocate resources.




So what was your meaning? I told you, i think this is "bad". You told me:

"You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Suplly and emand does not operate on moral principle."

So what was the intend of the post? Were you telling me, that i should not think of that situation as "good or bad" or not? Or was it a statement like "my cat is eating right now", having no relevance to the discussion? I doubt that.

Again you misread my post. I do not criticise you for having a moral view, I sate that in economic terms morality is (theoretically) irrelevant.



Do you really, really, REALLY think, that GW does care...?
Oh, i won't be buying more non-SM minis, i will be buying less GW minis. (FoW is a nice game and the company seems to be having great community support).

You exercise your right, and if enough other people follow suit we may see GW change their strategy. Or not. But I think GW does care about sustaining their business and trying to grow it.




Really? Okay. The point is this: Space Marine Veterans from let's say 2004 look great. So do those from 2006. They just have different poses. A newbie in the hobby doesn't really. 2006 models will replace 2004 models and he will buy what is there. Veterans might buy those models or not. They already have Veterans, so why more?
But the newbie probably won't buy any Dark Eldar models, because they look like crap (because they are so old). But maybe he will buy great looking new Dark Eldar models, while many Dark Eldar players will replace their existing range, because, you know, the old models suck.

"They already have Veterans, so why more?" Why not? If demand exist then they have an obligation to their own sucess to meet it.

If a hard decsion is taken to meet greater demand in one area before a lesser demand in another ,then those decisions have to be taken if it is in the best interest of the continuation of the business, which in turn allows continued development of the hobby. However, these decisions are not absolutes, so delay does not mean never.

Varath- Lord Impaler
15-04-2008, 14:19
So? Expensive, not widely available (try ordering internationally. And then having a problem with your order...), not applicable for other races and in many cases not tournament legal.


Im in Australia and im ordering an army.

Who in the hell truly cares about Tournament legal?

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 14:32
Im in Australia and im ordering an army.

Well, i don't have the money for FW (GW is expensive enough) and i don't have a credit card. Now what?



Who in the hell truly cares about Tournament legal?
Well... tournament players? Maybe...?

rodmillard
15-04-2008, 15:02
It all comes down to profit margins. At one point, someone posted on here that 17 out of the top 20 best-sellers in GW stores were space marine models (the others were baneblades and terrain). Not 40K, although it sells almost twice the other two core games put together, but space marines. Since a new space marine army doesn't get a full range, they just add some new plastics to the existing range and release a conversion sprue, its a low outlay release for GW.

Minimal cost for maximum realisable profit. It's a shareholders (wet) dream.

This does not mean it is a bad thing, however. There has been a space marine (or variant space marine) codex released every year since 4th ed came out - meaning that games developers, sculptors and designers have had a lull in their schedules every year since 4th Ed (this pattern looks set to continue into 5th ed, BTW) The net result is that more time, as well as more money, can be invested in the model ranges for the other armies, with a knock on improvement in quality.

I wouldn't knock the space marine release schedule - one release a year is devoted to GW's cash cow, which means that the other 3 40K releases are far better quality. Whether this benefit carries over to the other ranges is debateable, as very few sculptors or designers work on both SF and Fantasy ranges, but 40K players should really think about what the next SM army means for *their* army before they moan about it...

Master Jeridian
15-04-2008, 15:06
Interesting thread, nice to see civility maintained.

I agree and disagree with both sides on different points.

First of 'the morale obligation' of GW to all races and peoples, to wage tabletop war in equality- all very noble, but it's a business, not the UN. So I can understand the side that sees why SM's have more Codex's and support than anyone else, it's a business, apparently supporting your winning product and neglecting the rest of your product range is good business.

Second, the idea that GW should have 'no morale obligation' as a soulless business is also a little to simplistic. People want SM's, so give them SM's at a reasonable price....sounds like business, but this isn't selling Bread, or a Car, where once the cash has been recieved you don't care what they do with it.
No, most people are buying the models to use them in 40k- your selling a Hobby, a Game Set.
So it's important that your customer is satisfied with the game, and the general gaming community after the sale- so that they will buy more.
Unlike Bread, which the person must keep buying to eat, GW is a niche luxury item and so must have other incentives to keep people buying- hence a good game.
And a good game is not achieved if you concentrate heavily on one faction, to the detriment of other factions.

If GW did take the 'no morale obligations' truly to heart, they'd just sell SM's- they sell the most so why not cut down on waste stock. But they would soon find this is short-sighted, as a Marine-fest game would be very dull, and people would stop buying...even stop buying SM's.


The SM Chicken/Egg Syndrome is also an interesting conundrum. Are they popular because of the advertising/support or is the advertising/support so high because they are popular?
It's a mix of both, of course. SM's are an iconic image, and would probably be one of the most popular factions with the DE's level of (or lack of) support, but the sheer advertising/support inflates their popularity beyond it's 'natural' high. A new player see's SM pics on the GW Store walls, see's that the SM's have a fully stocked, near all plastic range on the shelves, see's that SM's come in the Starter Set (often with units far outclassing their 'opponent's in the box set- 3rd Ed SM Speeder versus 20 DE Warriors with Str 3 guns anyone...), see's that SM's take a front seat in all the background/campaigns/etc. He's very rarely going to wander over to that small IG, or DE section and think 'Yeah, I prefer these'.

But you need to support all your factions at least 'satisfactorily' to keep the game from stagnating- to make terms such as MEq not such overused terms. To make the game not just about writing your army list to beat Marines.

I keep hearing also, that we can't prove that the various SM Codex's take an army 'slot' from DE or the Orks, that they never delayed the release of such Codex's. So for some reason SM Codex's were formed instantaneously, with all the advertising, support, models, box sets just falling out of the sky onto GW one sunny day.

So, I think removing BA/DA is far too extreme, it would recieve very bad reactions from said players- essentially it's 'too late' to get rid of them. Also, throwing out a dozen 'token' Codex's like Codex Saim Hann, Codex Blood Axe's, etc just to appease is silly- there isn't the demand.

But the idea that SM's should be so heavily promoted (in store, in starter sets, in background, in new models (how many Chaplains...), etc) at the detriment of other armies is a little short-sighted.

CrimsonTider
15-04-2008, 16:47
I agree with just about all that has come before. However, I cannot agree with the stated fact that a marine codex has taken the place of another races codex seriously.

GW would (hopefully) have some sort of plan of action for codex planning. If they have determined that 10 different marine codeci need to be redone before Dark Eldar get their shot, it is probably based upon sales figures and profit margins. It is not a "good" or "bad" moral decision, but rather a "good or bad" busniess decision.

It is their job to try and make a profit. If you have 100 people wanting to buy marines and only 20 people wanting to buy anything other than marines, you will make more money for the investment by making marines. It costs more to invest in a new DE range than it does to add to the SM range. A SM range investment will most likely bring greater profits than a DE range change will.


If you then invest some of the SM profits into a new DE range, you will see some profit return. This investment will serve to keep the game going by keeping players interested. But an updated range for DE will not be as high on the priority list as marines simply because the overall interest and profit margin are not there.

GW needs to make smarter business decisions at times. They need to be more efficient, and produce a better, more timely product. They need to keep everyone happy. But keeping EVERYONE happy is impossible, there will always be someone left out in the cold, or at least they will feel as if they have been left out. GW, like most companys, will do their best to follow the money/profits. Sometimes to the detriment of their customers.

CrimsonTider
15-04-2008, 16:52
It is like the LotR example given previously... it was hot for a while, a good investment of time and money. Then the bubble burst, the movies came and went, and now only the more hard core players still buy the new stuff, with few new players getting into the game. Makes it hard for a company to invest more money into a dying game.

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 16:58
It is like the LotR example given previously... it was hot for a while, a good investment of time and money. Then the bubble burst, the movies came and went, and now only the more hard core players still buy the new stuff, with few new players getting into the game. Makes it hard for a company to invest more money into a dying game.

Which is a different thing. LotR may be dying, but people can play it with all their armies. In 40K there is a lot of change, but it affects only part of the game. While armies or editions are released massive changes to the game balance are made. But GW does not manage to mage those changes, so that all older armies stay enjoyable as before. And instead of updating all armies to the same level, they usually only update a few (always including Space Marines), leading to a worse game.

Eryx_UK
15-04-2008, 17:06
With regards to the codexes for armies with multiple books, I think that they should be combined into single volumes.

Space Marine: Ultramarines (Generic list), DA, BA, SW, BT and maybe notes for one or two others.
Imperial Guard: Generic, DoK, Cadians, and maybe a couple others.

I think Eldar, Orks and CSM would benefit from this. That way players/fans of the other armies (DE being an obvious example) don't get too left out like they are.

I know this probably isn't a good working modal from GW's POV financially, but it would make sense from a customer POV I think.

CrimsonTider
15-04-2008, 17:08
Oh, I agree totally that GW is not a well managed organization. They are inefficient as all get out, and do not manage to keep their customers happy uinder normal circumstances. As I said before, they need an efficiency expert in their ranks, some one to ride herd on them and to trim the dead wood before it rots the whole tree.

The problem would seem to be the machine (or company) is run by game enthusiasts who play at being businessmen. However, if it were run truly as a busniess, then the enthusiasm the businessmen have for the game would not exist, and the game would suffer for it.

GW needs an expert in house to keep things moving, to keep things even-handed, and to keep things stable during updates. They constantly make the same mistakes over and over again, and they are even slow about sending out FAQs or updates to existing lists that become outdated once they put out a new ruleset or codex.

Stingray_tm
15-04-2008, 17:13
Currently i am taking an interest in FoW and i am astonished, how the community support of Battlezone seems to be.

They have an active forum (gosh!), regularly release "army list"-PDFs, which are even tournament legal, don't hesitate to update a book/pdf, if there is an obvious error, and you also can play with minis from another manufacturer. (It is not encouraged of course, but they don't stigmatize you, if you do.)
There are scenarios and campaigns, downloadable from their site and they frequently update models from different armies at the same time, even making (tournament legal) appendices to intelligence briefings including the new units.
That's the way it should be. That's the way how they can sell models. They don't try to sell you an whole new army by not updating yours and promoting a new one with a full release, they let you expand your army with e.g. a new artillery piece, or release a new scenario book with new army list variants (for not only your army, but several).
I know, that a WW2 game works different, but man!

leonmallett
15-04-2008, 18:25
Currently i am taking an interest in FoW and i am astonished, how the community support of Battlezone seems to be.

They have an active forum (gosh!), regularly release "army list"-PDFs, which are even tournament legal, don't hesitate to update a book/pdf, if there is an obvious error, and you also can play with minis from another manufacturer. (It is not encouraged of course, but they don't stigmatize you, if you do.)
There are scenarios and campaigns, downloadable from their site and they frequently update models from different armies at the same time, even making (tournament legal) appendices to intelligence briefings including the new units.
That's the way it should be. That's the way how they can sell models. They don't try to sell you an whole new army by not updating yours and promoting a new one with a full release, they let you expand your army with e.g. a new artillery piece, or release a new scenario book with new army list variants (for not only your army, but several).
I know, that a WW2 game works different, but man!

Which is well and good, except what does it have to do with:

"Space marine chapters and their differences or lack thereof with other armies"?

Corax
16-04-2008, 08:27
While I can well understand the frustrations of people who play armies other than SMs, the fact remains that the beekies are GWs bread and butter. They are always going to get more face time than any of the others for purely economic reasons. Is it fair? No, but it probably is necessary from a business sense. Given that GW is a business, they will make decisions based on economic considerations, not fairness. While that may seem to be cold comfort for many players, it is simply the reality. If you don't like it, you have the choice to take your business elsewhere if you so wish, but I think that persevering is probably better in the long run, as none of the alternatives have much going for them.

BrainFireBob
16-04-2008, 08:48
Oh come on. They had 10 years to release Orks or Dark Eldars. Why didn't they do so? Because they worked on Marine armies.

False. We have several statements from the design studio to the effect that codices were done as designers were inspired to do them. None of the designers was hot on Orks or Dark Eldar, so they weren't done.

EDIT: Hellebore, you're one of the most even-handed posters on here, but I have to agree with Lionhammer- there's no criterion for fairness in effect, aside from fairness to the market. Marine "sub" players are apparently comparable to Xenos players; ie, there's roughly as many Wolves players as, say Necron. Tradeoff is, the Marine releases aren't on the scale of Xenos races, because Marine players can all use everything, resulting in a constant "wallet bleed" that funds development of other armies. Quite a bit of development recently has been Marine, Xenos- instead of viewing that as unfair, realize that financially it's "Cash Cow, Low-Profit Margin Supplement."

No, it's not fair to mono-Xenos players- but we're not all taking turns here. If we were taking turns, do Marine players only get one turn, or do they get turns proportional to their demographic percentage? Because then we'd see even *more* Marine releases.

Müller
16-04-2008, 09:02
@Stingray...

Your arguments fall the very second you claim that Codex: Blood Angels and Dark Angels aren't even needed at all...
These armies only use the same base as in the SM Codex. Very much like the SM and CSM codex bases are extremely similar...
Other than that the armies don't follow the same rules at all...

BrainFireBob
16-04-2008, 09:05
Which is a different thing. LotR may be dying, but people can play it with all their armies. In 40K there is a lot of change, but it affects only part of the game. While armies or editions are released massive changes to the game balance are made. But GW does not manage to mage those changes, so that all older armies stay enjoyable as before. And instead of updating all armies to the same level, they usually only update a few (always including Space Marines), leading to a worse game.

Updating the Space Marines updates the greatest number of players to the new edition. Chaos and Eldar- the two largest non-Imp SM groups- are also updated around the time of a new edition.

"Make them as enjoyable as before?" That's a subjective argument. Appeals to emotion are not reasons, they are attempts to induce guilt. Please elaborate. Do you claim that any edition upgrade since 2nd makes armies unplayable?

Occulto
16-04-2008, 09:28
Wow.

My comment did provoke a healthy response!

My attitude towards SM codices has always been this: "if every man and his dog plays SM, then they may as well release rules to make them play differently."

When my mate Tim puts down his Flesh Tearers, they play differently to my mate Adam's Templars, which play differently to my Dark Angels (DW, RW or "normal") which play differently to that SW army that I faced at the tournament and so on. (We don't have a resident SW player).

When there are as many Ork players as SM players, and there's a real need to differentiate them, I'll expect to see a swag of Ork sub codices. But at the moment, I'm seeing enough variety with Ork lists that I just don't see the need.

It's an unfortunate fact of life, that when SM releases are put out, they sell like hotcakes and increase sales of existing SM models. We know this, because GW keep doing it.

I've heard it said many times that every SM release basically pays for the development of every other release both in 40K and WHFB.

So if SM pay for Orks and Eldar to get additions to their ranges, I'll grin and smile and welcome every single one of those "pointless" codices. If there were enough Ork and Eldar players to do the same, then by god, I'd be cheering for Codex: Bad Moons or Codex: Striking Scorpion Aspect Shrine.

Unfortunately there's no amount of new codices that are going to magically change the number of non-SM players.

While SM are cheap, easy to convert, easy to paint and easy to play every single new player is going to be encouraged to start off with them. And while people keep buying them, they'll keep getting new stuff.

GW don't love SM because they're "z0mg cool!" They love 'em because they're the pure-bred racehorse that consistenly wins enough prize money to keep the stable afloat.

Imperialis_Dominatus
16-04-2008, 09:32
In before "oh, what if we combine all the armies into one statline and ruleset" strawman. ;)

Delduwath
16-04-2008, 09:35
It is their job to try and make a profit. If you have 100 people wanting to buy marines and only 20 people wanting to buy anything other than marines, you will make more money for the investment by making marines. It costs more to invest in a new DE range than it does to add to the SM range. A SM range investment will most likely bring greater profits than a DE range change will.



If you have 95 people wanting to update their space marines (using 50$) and 5 buying 400$ worth vs 20 people buying 400$ worth "anything but marines" (since their models are old&crappy or they want to collect new army) hows your business looks now?

BrainFireBob
16-04-2008, 09:38
Ah, but Delduwath, that doesn't match the actual numbers- we know this for a *fact,* making it inarguable. SMs account for the overwhelming majority of 40K sales, and 40K dominates Fantasy and LOTR combined.

Hellebore
16-04-2008, 09:38
EDIT: Hellebore, you're one of the most even-handed posters on here, but I have to agree with Lionhammer- there's no criterion for fairness in effect, aside from fairness to the market. Marine "sub" players are apparently comparable to Xenos players; ie, there's roughly as many Wolves players as, say Necron. Tradeoff is, the Marine releases aren't on the scale of Xenos races, because Marine players can all use everything, resulting in a constant "wallet bleed" that funds development of other armies. Quite a bit of development recently has been Marine, Xenos- instead of viewing that as unfair, realize that financially it's "Cash Cow, Low-Profit Margin Supplement."

No, it's not fair to mono-Xenos players- but we're not all taking turns here. If we were taking turns, do Marine players only get one turn, or do they get turns proportional to their demographic percentage? Because then we'd see even *more* Marine releases.

My argument wasn't centred around demographics, rather around armies themselves.

I won't deny that marines make a large proportion of the population of armies.

What I don't like is people claiming this is justified because those armies 'deserve' a seperate codex because they are 'sufficiently different'. If people wish to argue for marines receiving the favoured treatment they do, then they should do so using the 'truth' and not some fanboish rationalisation.

The fact is that the Space Wolves are slightly different marine army. Just as the Saim Hann Wild Riders are a slightly different eldar army. There is nothing more to it. Had GW thought that the eldar were more marketable this discussion would probably be titled:

"Eldar Craftworlds and their differences or lack thereof with other armies"

GW chose to differentiate them, but they didn't need to be (and for 1.5 editions they weren't).

I really see it as a circular argument: marines are popular because GW supports them, GW supports them because they are popular.

There is definitely some aspects that could be argued to thematically inspire people to play marines without the advertisements - heroic warrior knights are a great image.

However I do not believe it is the sole, or even main reason for their success.

Consider at the start of 2nd edition. They released the 'black codex' with a single generic army list for each race/faction:

Space Marines
Imperial Guard
Imperial Agents
Squats
Orks
Eldar
Chaos
Tyranids
Genestealers


Now of these, only the orks, eldar and tyranids can be considered completely 'Imperial free'; marines, guard, agents, chaos, squats, and genestealers were all based off or consisted entirely of Imperial units.

However, marines had one list. The Imperium itself had several, but marines only had a few.

Then, the first marine list they created was Codex: Space Wolves. Not even a basic marine list, but the most divergent of them all.

Now at this point they had not pushed 40k toward a marine bias. They couldn't 'know' that marines would be supersuper popular (there have been statements from members of GW that the plastic RTB01 beakies were a hit when they were released, but how much of that was entirely down to them being the ONLY plastic miniature box set available at the time?) Consider also that the space wolves are not 'standard' marines. They couldn't know that they would be popular; all they would have had is figures showing that 'normal' marines were popular.

So they took a chance on an army that had not existed previously. It was popular (again some of this would be down to the lack of other options, although there were generic marine models available - the space wolves had an ENTIRE metal range made for them and a nice new book unique to 40k).

The only reason that these marine codicies exist today is because they kept releasing unusual marine chapters as full codicies in 2nd edition and miniatures to go with it.

My point is that there is no real reason they couldn't do that for the orks, or the eldar.

They couldn't know that the Space Wolves would be popular considering they were different to the normal marines, but they took a punt and it worked out.

They've never taken that kind of punt with anything else. They found a good thing and stuck to it. The craftworld codex was nothing in comparison.

My first codex in 2nd edition was Space Wolves, but my second was Eldar. They looked so damn cool with their different units. They shrine nature of the eldar works very similarly to the marine chapter, so doing codicies about those would not have been that different.

So my point is that GW could have easily chosen a different faction to split up the way it did to marines, but didn't.

When your choices are 'marines or nothing' then you get biased sales figures.

Are marines inherently, naturally more attractive to people than other armies? They certainly do have some features that classic hero material. However I believe the Eldar Aspect Warriors also have that image, AND the eastern martial arts cool dude image as well.

Sales are also hard to compare in cases like the space wolves. You can't tell if someone is buying eldar to create a Biel Tann army or not, but you can when they are buying space wolf models because they have a unique line.

If GW released a Codex: Biel Tann with new and unique units and army composition with several special characters and a new model range and pushed it the same way that marines were pushed I think that they would sell.

The Dude made a point in another thread that I hadn't considered but could equally apply. Marines are just plain simpler to model and cast than anything else. Thus producing variations on them is a simple an easy way to produce more product.

My main beef though is with people that insist that INGAME space marine chapters are inherently more important than subfactions of other races.

Space Marines ARE more popular, but THAT is the only reason they are supported so much. The game, background and inherent importance of them are immaterial to their level of support.

Hellebore

BrainFireBob
16-04-2008, 09:43
The Dude is singing the same tune the rest of us are regarding Marines being easy updates.

As to the chance- I'd argue, without referring to the numbers, that the reason they took a chance on Marine variants in 2nd was that Marines were already the clear giant seller.

As to whether Dark Angels are unique enough in playstyle- well, yes, differences are minimal. Really, they've been manufactured. The all-bike Ravenwing, in game terms, is just as unique as Saim Hann; of course, there's more fluff on Ravenwing, but that's derived.

However, there is a unique Dark Angels faction and fanbase among *players* that's a distinct buying entity, and that isn't malarky. That was *enabled* by more Marine support, but regardless of whether that *was* fair, they exist *now,* and arguing yesterday isn't relevent to tomorrow in this regard.

Captain Jeffrey
16-04-2008, 11:18
Put in "Codex: Not Marines" in the Google Search and you'll get a site maintained by a French guy who wrote a very excellent and hard-hitting article on this very subject.

Just a few glossed points-

1) Games-Workshop has an overwhelming bias towards the Imperium and, in all of the literature, background, and even the game, wants humanity to prevail.

2) The same can be said about Chaos.

3) By in large, I have noticed that the largest number of the "power-gaming" groups of 40K come in with Chaos and Space Marines.

4) Why? I think he had it best- because the Space Marine Tactical Squad boxed set, alone, is like 50% of GW's net profits. What's second? At 10-20%, their evil twins! (aka Chaos).

5) Skilled Space Marine players should be able to beat the pants off of any other army- they can be fitted to be whatever you want them to be. In effect, you are handicapping yourself in the 40K universe if you play a Xenos race (my two favored tilts these days are my Tyranids- which won a local area tournament about 3 months ago- and my Craftworld Eldar.)

6) I have played both Blood Angels and Dark Angels for a very, very, very, VERY long time. BA's were my first ever 40K army. I still have all of my Marine models. They don't show up to play as often as they used to years ago (nowadays it's my Imperial Guard, Tyranids, and Craftworld Eldar that are largely in the spotlight), but they do game- and they have a tendency to often win.

(Though for some sick reason, my Tyranids have my best record. I cannot recall their last loss (however I can recall Eldar ones usually vividly since their record is about 40% win) I think the Nids either- 1- Suit my play-style perfectly (extremely aggressive tactics)- 2- People freak out when I put them on the table, or 3- Nobody knows how to properly counter them before sheer numbers overwhelm you.)

7) Model/Army Type appeal-

Space Marines are hardy, extremely powerful, and you don't need many of them to get a large game going. They also have the largest array of HQ characters, Special Characters, and divergent units/compositions.

8) Apocalypse-

I've only played it once, and it's designed for EXTREMELY friendly play with people you KNOW. You are supposed to take the rules lightly and with a grain of salt-- IE- for "gentlemanly agreements" we agreed to not take the "Communication with teammates is barred" stratagem. It's stupid.

Otherwise it's essentially, IMO, the biggest cash-cow for GW to hit the sales floor. So many people have been buying Apocalypse sets that they either never get painted, or have SO many models they can't even use them in most games (such as the 9 Leman Russ box set- even with my IG Armored Company with Kitech-Zhengdefu company tanks in it, even I don't use 9 Leman Russes in 2000 points.)

Those are just my 2 cents on it.

Iracundus
16-04-2008, 11:59
My main beef though is with people that insist that INGAME space marine chapters are inherently more important than subfactions of other races.

Agreed. Far too many people get the cause and effect mixed up. GW didn't write Marine sub codices BECAUSE the chapters were special and different. They originally were not. GW MADE the chapters different in order to write sub codices about them. What GW could do with originally identical or undetailed Marine chapters, they could do with Craftworlds or Ork Klans or Hive Fleets if they so chose.

CrimsonTider
16-04-2008, 12:29
Oh absolutely, GW could certainly create a codex hive fleet, or codex ork klans, or even codex craftworlds. The problem would be; Will it sell enough to justify the investment?

In a perfect world, and with a more efficient business machine, all the races would receive due support. IS there enough variety in craftworlds to justify seperate codexes? Yes, there certainly is. IS there enough interest (money) in seperate eldar codexes to justify the expense? Who knows? Only GW has the numbers to judge by, and that would be past sales. They have released different a eldar codex in the past, as well as ork klan rules. Perhaps the sales for the products in the past did not indicate enough interest for an update?

But, I think the most telling part is that the codexes are worked on and put out as the games developers get interested. Not a good business decision there, is it? If I were a developer, and my main interests were marines, guard, and orks, and if I only worked on things that interested me, then I would only put out stuff related to marines, guard, and orks.

Iracundus
16-04-2008, 12:40
Oh absolutely, GW could certainly create a codex hive fleet, or codex ork klans, or even codex craftworlds. The problem would be; Will it sell enough to justify the investment?

In a perfect world, and with a more efficient business machine, all the races would receive due support. IS there enough variety in craftworlds to justify seperate codexes? Yes, there certainly is. IS there enough interest (money) in seperate eldar codexes to justify the expense? Who knows? Only GW has the numbers to judge by, and that would be past sales. They have released different a eldar codex in the past, as well as ork klan rules. Perhaps the sales for the products in the past did not indicate enough interest for an update?


I could make an argument for the opposite. The Eldar are I think the most popular selling Xenos race (discarding Chaos Marines and any Imperial army lists for the moment). The variant Chapters originally didn't have many figures unique to themselves, just mostly different background, a few rules, and different paint scheme. If GW were hypothetically to go for a full blown Craftworld Codex variant, there could be less investment than creating a full blown new line and race from scratch as the majority of the miniatures are already there. Depending on the numbers, it could present a way to boost sales with less actual monetary investment beyond the writing.



But, I think the most telling part is that the codexes are worked on and put out as the games developers get interested. Not a good business decision there, is it? If I were a developer, and my main interests were marines, guard, and orks, and if I only worked on things that interested me, then I would only put out stuff related to marines, guard, and orks.
[/quote]

On that I am pretty sure it is the business people that tell the designers what the next project is. The problem is it seems these same bean counters are becoming increasingly risk averse especially in these economic times and unwilling to do more than just pound the same old approach of Marines and more Marines in order to try to vainly boost flagging overall sales.

CrimsonTider
16-04-2008, 14:49
Oh, don't get me wrong. I was not saying Eldar specifically were not popular, I was just using them as an example. And the bit about the developers only working on projects they were passionate about came from an earlier post, supposedly a quote from a GW high muckity-muck.

I think GW could do a much better job of support for all its products. Marines are easiest for a lot of reasons, and they make a lot of money so they get the most support. I play a marine army list myself (as well as a few others) and I don't mind the new models and updates at all. But, I also wish GW would update alot of the other stuff out there as well. Now that orks have finally been done, maybe DE can get their shot.

TheOneWithNoName
16-04-2008, 15:32
In before "oh, what if we combine all the armies into one statline and ruleset" strawman. ;)

Hey, if it was good enough for Chaos Legions and Craftworlds... ;)

Rioghan Murchadha
16-04-2008, 15:40
The bitter irony here is, in RT, Orks had 3 books.. Waaaaaaaargh! The Orks, Freebooters, and 'Ere we Go. Marines had none.

It is funny though that so many people bring up that GW is a business sort of as an apology for why there is a huge bias in 40k. (by the way, in parts of the world other than America, there actually is the concept of ethics and fairness in business.)

This would be fine if the business of GW wasn't a game. In order to be a good game, there has to be some element of fairness, or at least a pre-existing, delineated element of unfairness that is ok with both sides (most historical games). 40k has neither of these things.

People here love chess as the ultimate analogy. Imagine then, if companies that produced chess boards found that somehow more people played white than black. They then released new pieces, and new rules for white, while black was stuck with the same old pieces and age old rules. The game would swiftly cease to be what it is, since it would no longer be balanced, or fair.

CrimsonTider
16-04-2008, 16:47
A fair analogy, but not quite accurate for 40K. I totally agree that GW needs to update their other armies as often as they do SMs. I offer no apologies for GW, only speculate as to whys and wherefores. I totally advocate ethics and fairness in business, here in the USA or any where else for that matter.

What GW has done, and is doing, is not an unfair business practice, nor is it unethical. It might not be fair game-wise, as it supports some players (a majority of players maybe?) over others. Business-wise, this might make sense, as they are playing to their bread and butter, getting more profit for the least amount of investment. It is what we all would do in most cases. (Say you want to invest some money and your advisor tells you that you can make a $1000 profit by investing $5000 in stock A or the same amount of profit by investing $2500 in stock B. Almost all of us, wanting to make the most money, will choose stock B, right?).

Now, business-wise, this seems to make sense, as they get the most return for their investment. And short term they are right. Long term, however, they will tend to alienate a portion of their customers. If those customers quit playing, they quit purchasing. If they quit purchasing and playing, soon it will be nothing but marine players. And marines vs marines, no matter how many variables you put into them, will get boring, and the game dies a slow lingering death.

So, we are all pretty much agreed upon the fact that GW needs to support the other races more. Any suggestions as to what would be fair? Any suggestions as to what GW could do help even things out?

BrainFireBob
16-04-2008, 18:47
It is funny though that so many people bring up that GW is a business sort of as an apology for why there is a huge bias in 40k. (by the way, in parts of the world other than America, there actually is the concept of ethics and fairness in business.)


Allright, Rioghan. Some group needs to wait. One group is 80% of the people playing, one group is less than 7%. By your argument as you are applying it, it is fair to that 80% to make them be the ones to wait.

Again, I bring up the question of turns- if Marines received proportional support to their percentage of the fanbase, we'd be seeing *more* Marine releases, and several Xenos would be dropped.

lanrak
16-04-2008, 20:06
Hi all.
Perhaps if we draw comparisons to the way a very similar game is handeled as reguard to army support.

Warhammer is the GW game that started it all.
It is a generic fantasy battle game, featuring 'generic ' fantasy races, human , Orc, Dwarf, Elf , undead etc.
As such GW have always, (apart from the OK debarcle,)given even and timley support for all its armies.
As such the spread of support for the armies is quite even among WH players.


However , 40k was originaly WH in space with more guns.
BUT when the Space Marine became the iconic symbol of 40k...
It was obvious if a company makes ONE product miles more suitable for new players, then that ONE product will out sell all others.
SM are cheapest to collect , easiest to paint ,and turn into an army.

Perhaps GW corperate have ralised that increasing the numbers of seperate armies , just dilutes the return per army.
So going 'over kill' on marine suport gives them maximum return on investment.

Please remeber GW rule sets, army lists and codecies, are just used to market other GW product.

And there are other rule sets that can be used with GW minis,that are much cheaper and have far better game play/ballance.

leonmallett
16-04-2008, 20:21
Hi all.
Perhaps if we draw comparisons to the way a very similar game is handeled as reguard to army support.

Warhammer is the GW game that started it all.
It is a generic fantasy battle game, featuring 'generic ' fantasy races, human , Orc, Dwarf, Elf , undead etc.
As such GW have always, (apart from the OK debarcle,)given even and timley support for all its armies.
As such the spread of support for the armies is quite even among WH players.

Generally agreed, although Chaos Dwarf players may not agree, nor old school Slann or Amazon players.



However , 40k was originaly WH in space with more guns.
BUT when the Space Marine became the iconic symbol of 40k...
It was obvious if a company makes ONE product miles more suitable for new players, then that ONE product will out sell all others.
SM are cheapest to collect , easiest to paint ,and turn into an army.

How did GW make Space Marines miles more suitable for new players? The modern iteration of SM across multiple compatible kits are only fairly recent - from around third edition onwards, yet their popularity was there before then, in the days we saw Tyranid Warriors and Genestealers in plastic, and Ork boyz and Battlewagons, plastic Squats, plastic Imperial Guard (both in boxes of 36) and so on.


Perhaps GW corperate have ralised that increasing the numbers of seperate armies , just dilutes the return per army.
So going 'over kill' on marine suport gives them maximum return on investment.

Look at the facts. During third edition we saw two wholly new armies added in (Tau and Necrons - the latter were not fully realised before then). In addition we saw the introduction of Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters - neither specifically Space Marines. With fourth/fifth we are getting Daemons. Thus we have seen many new factions and races introduced - the opposite of what you suggest, since in each case there has been more investment in time, cost and resources to develop greater numbers of miniatures than for a typical SM release.


Please remeber GW rule sets, army lists and codecies, are just used to market other GW product.

And there are other rule sets that can be used with GW minis,that are much cheaper and have far better game play/ballance.

Another excuse to propogate your disdain for WH40K lanrak? How relevant is this to the question:

"Space marine chapters and their differences or lack thereof with other armies"

except as means to underscore your recurring polemic?

Rioghan Murchadha
16-04-2008, 20:40
Allright, Rioghan. Some group needs to wait. One group is 80% of the people playing, one group is less than 7%. By your argument as you are applying it, it is fair to that 80% to make them be the ones to wait.
Wait for what? Is it really too much to ask that a GAME company at least make sure that every army has an army book compatible with the current edition?

Do we really really need to see multiple marine codexes across a single edition, when there are other books that are 10 years old? Is marines waiting a year for a sublist really going to alienate the marine playerbase? (I propose not)

By the by.. I'm curious where these marine player statistics come from.. sometimes it's over 50%.. others it's 80%, or 90%, or 95% or whatnot.

If releases were spread evenly and fairly across the board in the past, ADD marine players wouldn't expect to get 8 codexes before the rest of the armies were updated. GW has created expectations of unfairness, and now they're stuck fulfilling them.


Again, I bring up the question of turns- if Marines received proportional support to their percentage of the fanbase, we'd be seeing *more* Marine releases, and several Xenos would be dropped.

Just like to point out that marines weren't the most popular faction in RT... Take a look, you'll see a hella lot more support for orks and chaos as opposed to SM. However, GW took marines and MADE them the most popular army in 40k. They became the iconic imagery associated with the game, and now the 'best sellers' 'most support' wheel is so set in its run that it's hard to tell which came first.. However it's still a self fulfilling prophecy, and no way to produce a real game where you care about the game over selling minis.

Deus Mechanicus
16-04-2008, 21:12
People love Space Marines.

I love Space Marines, you love Space Marines.

Let's face the honest truth that we're all dancing around here. Space Marines rocks, they have lots of codex and lots of models because they are the coolest army out there. I play Dark Angels, sometimes i use the Space Marine codex to represent my army sometimes the Dark Angels codex it's fun with a variation. You're saying you want less SM codex? Im still missing Iron Hands, a new Space Wolves, Imperial Fist and Raven Guard codex. All diverse and interesiting Space Marine chapters that in order to make use of their full potential needs a Codex each.

The Xenos races only exists so that Space Marines have someting to kill.

Victomorga
16-04-2008, 21:41
The bitter irony here is, in RT, Orks had 3 books.. Waaaaaaaargh! The Orks, Freebooters, and 'Ere we Go. Marines had none.

It is funny though that so many people bring up that GW is a business sort of as an apology for why there is a huge bias in 40k. (by the way, in parts of the world other than America, there actually is the concept of ethics and fairness in business.)

This would be fine if the business of GW wasn't a game. In order to be a good game, there has to be some element of fairness, or at least a pre-existing, delineated element of unfairness that is ok with both sides (most historical games). 40k has neither of these things.

People here love chess as the ultimate analogy. Imagine then, if companies that produced chess boards found that somehow more people played white than black. They then released new pieces, and new rules for white, while black was stuck with the same old pieces and age old rules. The game would swiftly cease to be what it is, since it would no longer be balanced, or fair.

GW isn't an American company, so I don't know what the hell you're getting at bringing up business ethics.

as far as the chess analogy goes, better analogy would be:
a company makes chess sets. they realize one day that some people prefer sets with red and green pieces, or blue and yellow. However, black and white sets continue to be far-and-away their best sellers. they will continue to produce and market black and white sets more than the others.



Now, business-wise, this seems to make sense, as they get the most return for their investment. And short term they are right. Long term, however, they will tend to alienate a portion of their customers. If those customers quit playing, they quit purchasing. If they quit purchasing and playing, soon it will be nothing but marine players. And marines vs marines, no matter how many variables you put into them, will get boring, and the game dies a slow lingering death.

So, we are all pretty much agreed upon the fact that GW needs to support the other races more. Any suggestions as to what would be fair? Any suggestions as to what GW could do help even things out?

a huge part of this situation is that for all the anti marine sentiment, most haters ALSO have a marine army.


Hi all.
40k was originaly WH in space with more guns.
BUT when the Space Marine became the iconic symbol of 40k...
It was obvious if a company makes ONE product miles more suitable for new players, then that ONE product will out sell all others.
SM are cheapest to collect , easiest to paint ,and turn into an army.



necrons are the cheapest, easiest to paint, and easiest to turn in to an army, not marines.



Just like to point out that marines weren't the most popular faction in RT... Take a look, you'll see a hella lot more support for orks and chaos as opposed to SM. However, GW took marines and MADE them the most popular army in 40k. They became the iconic imagery associated with the game, and now the 'best sellers' 'most support' wheel is so set in its run that it's hard to tell which came first.. However it's still a self fulfilling prophecy, and no way to produce a real game where you care about the game over selling minis.

GW didn't MAKE marines more popular. they emerged as the most popular element of the mythos and they have been given more attention in accordance with that. they account for 50% (as I have been told by two different former employees, which admittedly is still heresay) of all of GW's revenue. not 50% of 40k, but 50% of ALL REVENUE. I'm not saying they way GW handles the situation is fair, and obviously they should revamp the outdated codecies, but marines fund the entire company, let alone the game of 40k.

so when a new marine chapter-specific codex comes out, it is a marketing strategy based around re-introducing a company's strogest product. don't take it personally. is it justified in-game? no. does it fund the entire hobby? yes. unfortunate, but true.

Master Jeridian
16-04-2008, 23:48
I smell a troll Deus Mechanicus.

Templar Ben
17-04-2008, 01:59
There should be no BA and DA codizes on EXPENSE of other codizes, which is the case. It's like Toyota having people to wait for their cars to be repaired for a very long time, while the best selling cars get new models all the time. It may make sense business-wise, but it is very bad treatment of customers and an overall ****** service. Other companies can't afford the behaviour GW is showing right now. And GW is not doing well. Coincidence?

Bad treatment of customers rarely makes sense business wise. Perhaps the treatment isn't actually bad at all. You know how people say "the customer is always right"? Well only two types of people say that, customers and failing business owners. Customers can't always be right because the customer doesn't even know what he wants. Well the customer is buying the product so that is truly that the market demands. I honestly don't follow where there is a problem there.


Use traits.
My solution of the problem does not work, because GW did decide to not solve (or even acknowledge) the problem. That doesn't make my solution a bad one.

Perhaps they didn't acknowledge the problem because it doesn't exist.


So what was your meaning? I told you, i think this is "bad". You told me:

"You are applying moral judgement (Good vesrsus Bad) to a business decision. Suplly and emand does not operate on moral principle."

So what was the intend of the post? Were you telling me, that i should not think of that situation as "good or bad" or not? Or was it a statement like "my cat is eating right now", having no relevance to the discussion? I doubt that.

It is not "bad" for a company to stop or reduce a product line. New Coke failed. I don't get mad at Coca Cola for not still putting it on the shelf. Coke has since gone out and introduced Lime Coke and Vanilla Coke. That effort could have been spent on getting New Coke back on the shelf. That doesn't make Coca Cola "bad". We are trying to tell you that it isn't a morality issue since morals are never considered. Bits of styrene are not a moral issue.

Other mentioned business ethics but that doesn't apply here. If GW were deciding to source styrene from source A that works to develop the local community and not from source B that is focused on growing without concern for the environment then you could speak about ethics. Supporting one line or another is not a issue where ethics enters.


Really? Okay. The point is this: Space Marine Veterans from let's say 2004 look great. So do those from 2006. They just have different poses. A newbie in the hobby doesn't really. 2006 models will replace 2004 models and he will buy what is there. Veterans might buy those models or not. They already have Veterans, so why more?
But the newbie probably won't buy any Dark Eldar models, because they look like crap (because they are so old). But maybe he will buy great looking new Dark Eldar models, while many Dark Eldar players will replace their existing range, because, you know, the old models suck.

If that were the case, newbies don't care and vets don't need them, then why do the Space Marine releases do so well? The answer is naturally that the market is much larger then you thought.


First of 'the morale obligation' of GW to all races and peoples, to wage tabletop war in equality- all very noble, but it's a business, not the UN. So I can understand the side that sees why SM's have more Codex's and support than anyone else, it's a business, apparently supporting your winning product and neglecting the rest of your product range is good business.

I agree that there is no moral obligation for GW to support all lines, even the ones that have failed. Producing what the market desires and then making that available for purchase and not using those resources to make what the market clearly doesn't desire is in fact good business.


Second, the idea that GW should have 'no morale obligation' as a soulless business is also a little to simplistic. People want SM's, so give them SM's at a reasonable price....sounds like business, but this isn't selling Bread, or a Car, where once the cash has been recieved you don't care what they do with it.
No, most people are buying the models to use them in 40k- your selling a Hobby, a Game Set.
So it's important that your customer is satisfied with the game, and the general gaming community after the sale- so that they will buy more.
Unlike Bread, which the person must keep buying to eat, GW is a niche luxury item and so must have other incentives to keep people buying- hence a good game.
And a good game is not achieved if you concentrate heavily on one faction, to the detriment of other factions.

Again you seem to be saying that GW has some responsibility after the product is sold and you have not supported that assertion. You purchase the game and you play the game.

A good game can easily be achieved if it were all Space Marines unless you have some basis to assert otherwise.


If GW did take the 'no morale obligations' truly to heart, they'd just sell SM's- they sell the most so why not cut down on waste stock. But they would soon find this is short-sighted, as a Marine-fest game would be very dull, and people would stop buying...even stop buying SM's.

Again you assert that SM only sales would somehow be a "bad" thing to quote a previous poster. Claiming that all Marine games would result in lost sales isn't something that has been proven. There are games that have both armies very similar to each other. In fact, most good wargames have less variation in the armies then exist in the Space Marine armies. GW is unique in to correct issues with the game they address that through the use of special rules instead of simply fixing the game.


The SM Chicken/Egg Syndrome is also an interesting conundrum. Are they popular because of the advertising/support or is the advertising/support so high because they are popular?
It's a mix of both, of course. SM's are an iconic image, and would probably be one of the most popular factions with the DE's level of (or lack of) support, but the sheer advertising/support inflates their popularity beyond it's 'natural' high. A new player see's SM pics on the GW Store walls, see's that the SM's have a fully stocked, near all plastic range on the shelves, see's that SM's come in the Starter Set (often with units far outclassing their 'opponent's in the box set- 3rd Ed SM Speeder versus 20 DE Warriors with Str 3 guns anyone...), see's that SM's take a front seat in all the background/campaigns/etc. He's very rarely going to wander over to that small IG, or DE section and think 'Yeah, I prefer these'.

But you need to support all your factions at least 'satisfactorily' to keep the game from stagnating- to make terms such as MEq not such overused terms. To make the game not just about writing your army list to beat Marines.

I keep hearing also, that we can't prove that the various SM Codex's take an army 'slot' from DE or the Orks, that they never delayed the release of such Codex's. So for some reason SM Codex's were formed instantaneously, with all the advertising, support, models, box sets just falling out of the sky onto GW one sunny day.

So, I think removing BA/DA is far too extreme, it would recieve very bad reactions from said players- essentially it's 'too late' to get rid of them. Also, throwing out a dozen 'token' Codex's like Codex Saim Hann, Codex Blood Axe's, etc just to appease is silly- there isn't the demand.

But the idea that SM's should be so heavily promoted (in store, in starter sets, in background, in new models (how many Chaplains...), etc) at the detriment of other armies is a little short-sighted.

The advertising they have done for 15 years is short sighted?


With regards to the codexes for armies with multiple books, I think that they should be combined into single volumes.

Space Marine: Ultramarines (Generic list), DA, BA, SW, BT and maybe notes for one or two others.
Imperial Guard: Generic, DoK, Cadians, and maybe a couple others.

I think Eldar, Orks and CSM would benefit from this. That way players/fans of the other armies (DE being an obvious example) don't get too left out like they are.

I know this probably isn't a good working modal from GW's POV financially, but it would make sense from a customer POV I think.

You say that it doesn't make sense for GW to do it. You are honest. See above about the intellectual ability of customers.


In before "oh, what if we combine all the armies into one statline and ruleset" strawman. ;)

That is my favorite strawman. Probably because I play LotR which is GW's game that doesn't rely on anything other than tactical play to make factions different.


What I don't like is people claiming this is justified because those armies 'deserve' a seperate codex because they are 'sufficiently different'. If people wish to argue for marines receiving the favoured treatment they do, then they should do so using the 'truth' and not some fanboish rationalisation.

The truth is all about markets. Why aren't the SM flavors "sufficiently different" in your opinion? White Marines have the best save in the game, Red Marines are very mobile, Black Marines have oversized units and Blue Marines are a middle ground. How different does an army need to be to justify a book in your world?


The fact is that the Space Wolves are slightly different marine army. Just as the Saim Hann Wild Riders are a slightly different eldar army. There is nothing more to it. Had GW thought that the eldar were more marketable this discussion would probably be titled:

"Eldar Craftworlds and their differences or lack thereof with other armies"

GW chose to differentiate them, but they didn't need to be (and for 1.5 editions they weren't).

If eldar were more marketable that may have a basis. As I told you before, people want to play something that they can relate to. It is just like how people pick who to vote for.


I really see it as a circular argument: marines are popular because GW supports them, GW supports them because they are popular.

Or GW expanded and saw SM sales go up and focused where the market was. When you let people choose sometimes they will choose things you don't like.


There is definitely some aspects that could be argued to thematically inspire people to play marines without the advertisements - heroic warrior knights are a great image.

It is a great image that works. People want to play Space Marines because they are super men. Much like why people buy comic books that feature super heros that look pretty much human and not nearly so those that look like giant bugs.


My point is that there is no real reason they couldn't do that for the orks, or the eldar.

They couldn't know that the Space Wolves would be popular considering they were different to the normal marines, but they took a punt and it worked out.

They've never taken that kind of punt with anything else. They found a good thing and stuck to it. The craftworld codex was nothing in comparison.

You are presuming that people would go crazy for a non-human army. Why?


So my point is that GW could have easily chosen a different faction to split up the way it did to marines, but didn't.

Exactly. For some reason you think that reason was wrong but we can most likely presume that it is because some research (existing sales of models, market research, view of related sales of noves, etc.) told them that SM was the way to go.


When your choices are 'marines or nothing' then you get biased sales figures.

I have yet to see the store that has marines or nothing. Then again I don't know the situation where you are.


Are marines inherently, naturally more attractive to people than other armies? They certainly do have some features that classic hero material. However I believe the Eldar Aspect Warriors also have that image, AND the eastern martial arts cool dude image as well.

To answer your question, yes. Is Wolverine naturally more attractive to teenagers than Nightcrawler? Yes. He is basically human but better because he kicks butt. Eldar do not portray that image, perhaps because they are so slight of frame or because of their background but they come across more as that race most likely to be abused in prison.


Sales are also hard to compare in cases like the space wolves. You can't tell if someone is buying eldar to create a Biel Tann army or not, but you can when they are buying space wolf models because they have a unique line.

If Eldar had sustained sales I assure you that GW would find some way to capitalize on it. If Eldar models were flying off the shelves today then you would see GW find some way to keep that going.


If GW released a Codex: Biel Tann with new and unique units and army composition with several special characters and a new model range and pushed it the same way that marines were pushed I think that they would sell.

But why should they take that risk just because you think that it may work?


My main beef though is with people that insist that INGAME space marine chapters are inherently more important than subfactions of other races.

Define INGAME. Space Marine chapters are more important because the game is ultimately about humanity's struggle against enemies outside and within. Space Marines are the key to that because of their creation by the Emperor. You view the game as being something else and perhaps at some point it was.


Space Marines ARE more popular, but THAT is the only reason they are supported so much. The game, background and inherent importance of them are immaterial to their level of support.

The background is all about marines. The big story isn't how the Eldar orgied themselves a new god or how the Necrons want to kill the Old One's children. The big story is how a son turned on his father and that father's love was proven when he ensured his son would be freed. That part that involves the marines is important. 41K (you know 2 days after the turn of the millennium) could easily have a civil war erupt and it be focused solely on Marine vs Marine and IG vs IG with Codex:Xeno Threats to cover everything else and it would be the same game.

Lionsbane
17-04-2008, 02:01
I think the biggest part of the problem is not the wait for X codex. As that seems to hit everyone save Generic SM players at some point or another. It is the out and out refusal by GW to do quick and dirty Codex updates to bring them up to date with new Editions. I mean they are play testing the rules for said edition correct? So said playtesters should be pointing out the most obvious rules changes problems with each codex and those should get dumped into WD at or around release time.

This goes hand in hand with GWs FAQ policy.

I for one would like to see MORE races, more sub-lists, more variant armies. I'd love to see a Banshee shrine army. More varity can only add to the hobby. But I do not want SW rolled into the SM Codex either. If they had stayed there originally it would be an obvious no brainer. However at this point they would lose a lot conforming to anything in C:SM.


ADD marine players wouldn't expect to get 8 codexes before the rest of the armies were updated

Please keep this kind of statement out of what has mostly been a civilized discussion. Because someone else also wants their army updated and it happens to be a Marine variant army does not make them ADD nor does it mean they want 8 codexs before everyone else.


Do we really really need to see multiple marine codexes across a single edition,)

Do we really need to see multiple Eldar Codexs across a single edition. Cannot DE just use the Eldar Codex? If you are completely ok with this, then I can see your point about Marine Codexs. If you arn't then you should be able to see mine about multiple Marine Codexs.



when there are other books that are 10 years old? Is marines waiting a year for a sublist really going to alienate the marine playerbase? (I propose not)

I'm not sure why Variant marine armies should be expected to wait for rules so that a much smaller part of the player base can be appeased. Yes I realize that their Codex is only 8 years out of date instead of 10, however they do not need a completely new line of miniatures like DE do. Will DE waiting a year really alienate the amazingly small number of DE players? Not that I believe it will be a year even for DE. I do however believe Codex release with all new minis will take more time to develop than Codex release with one new sprue. Weather it be for Marines or Xenos of any flavor.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-04-2008, 02:05
GW isn't an American company, so I don't know what the hell you're getting at bringing up business ethics.
Many of the people that defend GW's practices in terms of 'it's a business' tend to be american. Americans trend towards being more cutthroat 'ends justify the means' people when it comes to making money.


as far as the chess analogy goes, better analogy would be:
a company makes chess sets. they realize one day that some people prefer sets with red and green pieces, or blue and yellow. However, black and white sets continue to be far-and-away their best sellers. they will continue to produce and market black and white sets more than the others.
That's not a better analogy at all, after all, game balance is affected quite dramatically when some armies have to wait for close to a decade without support.


a huge part of this situation is that for all the anti marine sentiment, most haters ALSO have a marine army.
I would like to point out that I have no anti-marine bias. I simply feel that if they need to produce fewer marine sub-codexes in order to get every army a codex for a single edition they should go that route.


GW didn't MAKE marines more popular. they emerged as the most popular element of the mythos and they have been given more attention in accordance with that. they account for 50% (as I have been told by two different former employees, which admittedly is still heresay) of all of GW's revenue. not 50% of 40k, but 50% of ALL REVENUE. I'm not saying they way GW handles the situation is fair, and obviously they should revamp the outdated codecies, but marines fund the entire company, let alone the game of 40k.
Err.. yeah, actually they did make them more popular. Marines started out as just humans in 4+ armour with bolters. GW turned them into the giant bio-chemically-genetically enhanced, psycho-conditioned super-monk-soldiers that they are now, and then they put statues of marines in their flagship stores, put marines in every starter box, and generally made marines the easiest army to get into. In all honesty, I'm not surprised that they're the best selling army in GW's arsenal.


so when a new marine chapter-specific codex comes out, it is a marketing strategy based around re-introducing a company's strogest product. don't take it personally. is it justified in-game? no. does it fund the entire hobby? yes. unfortunate, but true.
If it's still selling as your strongest product, there's no need to reintroduce it. Why not, while your marines are earning you rafts of cash, take the time to release the other armies so you can make even MORE money on top of what you're getting from marines? If they need to release a marine codex every year to keep interest up, then they should perhaps choose a new flagship army. That or simply produce Codex:Not Marines for every other race.. at least that way everyone could have a new army list for each edition.;)

Templar Ben
17-04-2008, 02:19
Many of the people that defend GW's practices in terms of 'it's a business' tend to be american. Americans trend towards being more cutthroat 'ends justify the means' people when it comes to making money.

How nice. Perhaps American's just don't view corporations as anything beyond what they are. A group of individuals working together to earn the maximum return for a given level of risk within the bounds of the law.


That's not a better analogy at all, after all, game balance is affected quite dramatically when some armies have to wait for close to a decade without support.

So that is the reason GW doesn't balance 40K? Silly Gav Thorpe said it was because they had no need to as the game was just for fun so didn't need to be balanced.


I would like to point out that I have no anti-marine bias. I simply feel that if they need to produce fewer marine sub-codexes in order to get every army a codex for a single edition they should go that route.

Or better yet, produce a quality ruleset so you don't have to update it so often.


Err.. yeah, actually they did make them more popular. Marines started out as just humans in 4+ armour with bolters. GW turned them into the giant bio-chemically-genetically enhanced, psycho-conditioned super-monk-soldiers that they are now, and then they put statues of marines in their flagship stores, put marines in every starter box, and generally made marines the easiest army to get into. In all honesty, I'm not surprised that they're the best selling army in GW's arsenal.

So as sales increased they changed the fluff. Hmmmm. Those evil corps are at it again.


If it's still selling as your strongest product, there's no need to reintroduce it. Why not, while your marines are earning you rafts of cash, take the time to release the other armies so you can make even MORE money on top of what you're getting from marines? If they need to release a marine codex every year to keep interest up, then they should perhaps choose a new flagship army. That or simply produce Codex:Not Marines for every other race.. at least that way everyone could have a new army list for each edition.;)

You really don't follow how marketing works it would appear. Why repackage your best selling product? Because that causes it to stay the best selling. I agree that having Codex:Xenos would be a better way to go.

P.S. Greed is good.

Ravenous
17-04-2008, 02:20
Long story short marine codices are no-brainer updates that are guaranteed to sell well. Fast, easy, and profitable, but by no means right.

Just another example how the game can never truely be balanced, because the guys steering it are being told to make rules that sell models.

Its no longer a game, its a subscription.

BrainFireBob
17-04-2008, 05:40
Rioghan:

Regarding your snarky numbers remark:

50% of *all* sales, that's rolling in LOTR and Fantasy, and it's Marines by themselves.

80% of all 40K players. That's not spending, that's percentage of the player base. There's more DA players than DE players. More BA than DE. More Wolves than DE.

You don't have to like it, but those are the facts. Marine players are literally legion.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-04-2008, 16:43
Please keep this kind of statement out of what has mostly been a civilized discussion. Because someone else also wants their army updated and it happens to be a Marine variant army does not make them ADD nor does it mean they want 8 codexs before everyone else.
What indicates that froth mouthed marine fans have issues with not getting new stuff every other week is the sheer number of people who post on threads like these in effect saying, "STFU!!! marines sell teh most so they should get the updates all the times!"


Do we really need to see multiple Eldar Codexs across a single edition. Cannot DE just use the Eldar Codex? If you are completely ok with this, then I can see your point about Marine Codexs. If you arn't then you should be able to see mine about multiple Marine Codexs.
I propose that we honestly do not need the what, 14 different army books we have now. You could easily roll all the imperial stuff into 1, (I'll even give you a seperate marine codex), all the eldar/dark eldar into 1, all of chaos into 1 big book that finally makes everyone happy enough to shut up about it, and maybe 1 completely Xenos codex (orks, nids, Tau, Necrons)



I'm not sure why Variant marine armies should be expected to wait for rules so that a much smaller part of the player base can be appeased. Yes I realize that their Codex is only 8 years out of date instead of 10, however they do not need a completely new line of miniatures like DE do. Will DE waiting a year really alienate the amazingly small number of DE players? Not that I believe it will be a year even for DE. I do however believe Codex release with all new minis will take more time to develop than Codex release with one new sprue. Weather it be for Marines or Xenos of any flavor.
Variant marine armies should be expected to wait so that instead of a multiple expiry date hodge podge of crap, we can have a cohesive game system for once.


How nice. Perhaps American's just don't view corporations as anything beyond what they are. A group of individuals working together to earn the maximum return for a given level of risk within the bounds of the law.
If you can tell me that many corporations operate completely within the bounds of the law with a straight face, then I'll be impressed. If you really firmly believe that it is acceptible to sacrifice ethics and morality in return for profit, then I literally have nothing more to say to you on that particular topic.


So that is the reason GW doesn't balance 40K? Silly Gav Thorpe said it was because they had no need to as the game was just for fun so didn't need to be balanced.
Same excuse apocalypse trots out. I'm pretty sure any 'game' is 'just for fun'. Problem is, most games don't end up being fun if they are totally imba. Last I checked, I didn't play games for work.. (unless you're a playtester or WoW subscriber ;))

This claim is usually uttered because for some reason GW can't be bothered to put in any effort towards game balance.


Or better yet, produce a quality ruleset so you don't have to update it so often.
This would be the obvious goal yes, but I don't hold out much hope for GW doing this.


So as sales increased they changed the fluff. Hmmmm. Those evil corps are at it again.
Were you at GW in the 80's? Do you actually know that they changed the fluff because of increased sales? or if the increased sales were a result of the changed fluff?


You really don't follow how marketing works it would appear. Why repackage your best selling product? Because that causes it to stay the best selling. I agree that having Codex:Xenos would be a better way to go.

P.S. Greed is good.
and you don't really know how a proper game works it would appear. Games are only fun if both players, given a similar skill level, have a similar chance to win. If the game mechanics are inherently unfair, the game largely ceases to be fun, unless you're playing a scenario driven historical game where the outcome has been predetermined. Unfortunately, GW is trying to market a game, using marketing techniques that were designed for regular consumer goods. Thus their game is suffering for it. (And it obviously isn't working all that well considering their fiscal statements.)

Besides which, it's bad business to not put any effort into flogging all the other crap you have lying around already produced.


Rioghan:

Regarding your snarky numbers remark:

50% of *all* sales, that's rolling in LOTR and Fantasy, and it's Marines by themselves.

80% of all 40K players. That's not spending, that's percentage of the player base. There's more DA players than DE players. More BA than DE. More Wolves than DE.

You don't have to like it, but those are the facts. Marine players are literally legion.

There was nothing snarky about it. I've simply seen so many numbers thrown around that I was curious as to the sources.

Templar Ben
18-04-2008, 00:20
If you can tell me that many corporations operate completely within the bounds of the law with a straight face, then I'll be impressed. If you really firmly believe that it is acceptible to sacrifice ethics and morality in return for profit, then I literally have nothing more to say to you on that particular topic.

I can honestly say that I have not been part of any operation that knowing violated the law. That is because the gain of violating the law is outweighed by the risks. On the other hand, I have helped convince lawmakers to change the law to make what we were wishing to do, legal.

As to sacrificing ethics and morals, well I have not suggested that anyone do that. I agree that business should be ethical because that is good business. Corporations are amoral (not immoral) so there is no morality to sacrifice.


Same excuse apocalypse trots out. I'm pretty sure any 'game' is 'just for fun'. Problem is, most games don't end up being fun if they are totally imba. Last I checked, I didn't play games for work.. (unless you're a playtester or WoW subscriber ;))

That is GW's official take, or at least was. The game isn't unbalanced because of the codex across versions. It is unbalanced because GW has no desire to make a balanced ruleset.


This claim is usually uttered because for some reason GW can't be bothered to put in any effort towards game balance.

They are under the belief that there is little upside from the investment. Given the tenor on threads when posters like myself suggest that the game be balanced causes me to see their point.


This would be the obvious goal yes, but I don't hold out much hope for GW doing this.

That is why I don't fight it anymore. I know GW can make a good game but they have no desire. I just don't expect them to produce quality and I am not surprised when they don't.


Were you at GW in the 80's? Do you actually know that they changed the fluff because of increased sales? or if the increased sales were a result of the changed fluff?

I was not at GW. So you are saying that because they said they were genetically enhanced, guys picked them up over the orks? That doesn't make sense but we can go with that theory.


and you don't really know how a proper game works it would appear. Games are only fun if both players, given a similar skill level, have a similar chance to win. If the game mechanics are inherently unfair, the game largely ceases to be fun, unless you're playing a scenario driven historical game where the outcome has been predetermined. Unfortunately, GW is trying to market a game, using marketing techniques that were designed for regular consumer goods. Thus their game is suffering for it. (And it obviously isn't working all that well considering their fiscal statements.)

Games are only fun to you in that case. That is not necessarily true in all cases. My favorite games are those which cannot be won. It definatly appears that GW has forced you out of their customer base. I just don't understand why you are trying to say GW should try to change things to win you back.

GW's problem is they have those stores.


Besides which, it's bad business to not put any effort into flogging all the other crap you have lying around already produced.

It depends. It may be better for them to run it through a sprue shreader. Do they have pallets of DE in a warehouse somewhere though?

As I said before, GW could simply have the game be SM vs SM and they would sell tons of minis to people.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-04-2008, 03:13
I can honestly say that I have not been part of any operation that knowing violated the law. That is because the gain of violating the law is outweighed by the risks. On the other hand, I have helped convince lawmakers to change the law to make what we were wishing to do, legal.

As to sacrificing ethics and morals, well I have not suggested that anyone do that. I agree that business should be ethical because that is good business. Corporations are amoral (not immoral) so there is no morality to sacrifice.
True, corporations of themselves are not moral or immoral, but they are made up of individuals who can and do embody those traits.


That is GW's official take, or at least was. The game isn't unbalanced because of the codex across versions. It is unbalanced because GW has no desire to make a balanced ruleset.

They are under the belief that there is little upside from the investment. Given the tenor on threads when posters like myself suggest that the game be balanced causes me to see their point.
Perhaps it's a good thing Gav is gone then, if that was one of his quotes, rather than something trotted out by the higher ups.


That is why I don't fight it anymore. I know GW can make a good game but they have no desire. I just don't expect them to produce quality and I am not surprised when they don't.
Meh.. they still do.. it's just that they either alienate everyone who had a hand in the good stuff (andy chambers), or else everyone who can still turn out a good game has moved over to specialist...

I think the issue is that the core games are the cash cows, so there is no care as to whether or not they're playable as long as the minis sell.


I was not at GW. So you are saying that because they said they were genetically enhanced, guys picked them up over the orks? That doesn't make sense but we can go with that theory.
No.. what I'm suggesting is that GW ramped up the 'cool' factor of marines by orders of magnitude. Dudes with 4+ armour and bolters are far less cool than 'Power Armoured, Genetically Engineered, Psycho-Indoctrinated, Warrior-Monk, Super Soldiers of the Future!!!' Plus, when you put a marine in power armour in every set, on every poster/promo item, and put big statues of them in stores, they tend to attract attention.


Games are only fun to you in that case. That is not necessarily true in all cases. My favorite games are those which cannot be won. It definatly appears that GW has forced you out of their customer base. I just don't understand why you are trying to say GW should try to change things to win you back.
I was suggesting that 'most' games are only fun to 'most' people if they have some sort of fair chance at winning. With of course the exception of games that are meant to be lost.. (say, playing as the germans in late WWII historical scenarios.)

Ironically, GW hasn't forced me out of their customer base. I'm celebrating 20 years of Warhammer this year. It's the fact that I've had so much fun over the years with their product, that causes me to react so strongly to the consistent screw-ups they seem to be making lately.


GW's problem is they have those stores.
Agreed, although they can be fun places to hang out at times.


It depends. It may be better for them to run it through a sprue shreader. Do they have pallets of DE in a warehouse somewhere though?
Actually, I think they do... When I worked at GW about 4 years back or so, (during the time they started to pull DE off the shelves) We shipped all DE stock back to the warehouse.


As I said before, GW could simply have the game be SM vs SM and they would sell tons of minis to people.
This is true, and had they started out doing this, instead of having other armies for some 20 odd years, and then turning it into SM vs SM, nobody would be annoyed. ;)

BrainFireBob
18-04-2008, 06:21
No.. what I'm suggesting is that GW ramped up the 'cool' factor of marines by orders of magnitude. Dudes with 4+ armour and bolters are far less cool than 'Power Armoured, Genetically Engineered, Psycho-Indoctrinated, Warrior-Monk, Super Soldiers of the Future!!!' Plus, when you put a marine in power armour in every set, on every poster/promo item, and put big statues of them in stores, they tend to attract attention.


Again, you are not considering that because Marines were so popular, they catered to Marine players by making Marines their iconic line.

We've discussed this in other threads- some recently- and a number of older 40K vets have vouchsafed that in their experience, marines always dominted the metagame. Always.

Mind, we cannot prove which came first- support or popularity (although most races don't have the mass appeal to the non-initiated gamer of Marines- seriously, Elves in space? was my first thought that nearly turned me off 40K, and when I found out there were Orks . . .!), but since we can't prove it- stop assuming that support alone created the marine juggernaut.

TzeentchForPresident
18-04-2008, 08:20
Rioghan:

Regarding your snarky numbers remark:

50% of *all* sales, that's rolling in LOTR and Fantasy, and it's Marines by themselves.

80% of all 40K players. That's not spending, that's percentage of the player base. There's more DA players than DE players. More BA than DE. More Wolves than DE.

You don't have to like it, but those are the facts. Marine players are literally legion.

I can certainly see that 80% of the players have enough Space Marine miniatures to make a SM army. However it doesn´t mean 80% have SM as their main army. During the Eye of Terror campaign a few years ago Space Marine players did report more battles than anyone else ofc, but still it was just a bit more than 40% of the total.

If the portion of SM players has increased since then, it certainly is bad for wh40k, because how funny will it be to most of the time be fighting the same type of army?

But anyway, they are almost doing it right with WHFB at least ;) Almost, because it was a while Chaos Dwarfs got some needed attention there.

Arkturas
18-04-2008, 14:56
I think that for balance there probably needs to be a disconnect between rules and models. Rules influence sales, bad rules mean not many sales. That's why there is a seesaw effect where units get better (to boost sales) and worse (to retain balance) with each new codex.

Looking back, DA and BA should be folded into SM, SW stays different and BT probably never should have been released but are here now so also probably need to stay as a separate codex. There are many other armies that could use sub-codicies both with and without new models (Craftworlds, Klans, Legions, Hive Fleets, Cults etc). The assumption on the part of GW is new codex and new models as a pair (to maximise sales) and that is the core problem for the game itself (but is good for business).

I would like to see all the codicies released free online (rules only, background stripped out and available in stores for a low price <20% of current) and any relevant sub-codicies that could be made from existing model ranges (legions, Craftworlds, Genestealer Cult, LatD etc). Keep the core game rules completely separate and aim for a fully up to date and compatible game. Good game rules and lots of now interested players (if it's free it's worth at least a look) should translate into more sales. Finally for the new model release to replace the codex something like an army background book. Of course actually putting a few adverts up outside of there own publication wouldn't hurt either

Rioghan Murchadha
18-04-2008, 16:15
Again, you are not considering that because Marines were so popular, they catered to Marine players by making Marines their iconic line.

We've discussed this in other threads- some recently- and a number of older 40K vets have vouchsafed that in their experience, marines always dominted the metagame. Always.

Mind, we cannot prove which came first- support or popularity (although most races don't have the mass appeal to the non-initiated gamer of Marines- seriously, Elves in space? was my first thought that nearly turned me off 40K, and when I found out there were Orks . . .!), but since we can't prove it- stop assuming that support alone created the marine juggernaut.

I actually did consider the reverse. If you look at my initial post on the subject, I mention that the support/popularity seesaw has been going for so long now that we don't really know which came first. My personal opinion, going on the fact that Rogue Trader had more support for Chaos and Orks than it did for marines, is that GW put effort into bolstering marine popularity.

That said, I've already noted that neither can be proven, but nowadays, it's a cycle that feeds itself to the detriment of the 40k game as a whole.

BrainFireBob
18-04-2008, 18:24
That doesn't make sense as a business model.

Their "draft version" of the game had more support for non-Marines, and they then focused on selling Marines. This only makes sense as a business decision if Marines had proven to be so popular, that the organization was restructured to capitalize on this. Selling more armies in general, or armies with more figures as the popular base, would make the most sense in a vacuum.

lanrak
18-04-2008, 19:27
Hi all.
Perhaps the shift in target demographic has something to do with the 'focus ' on Space Marines?

RT and most of 2nd ed ,all races in 40k were supported reasonably even handed.

3rd ed is squarly aimed at the 'teenie market'.The rules are 'simplified to appeal to younger gamers.'

As such a majority of the younger newbs want to identify with the 'cool superhuman knight type dudes that pwn everyone else 'in the background of the game.

And as GW Space Marines ARE the iconic image of 40k , and it is easier to write about humans , so more fluff is churned out from the Imperiums perspective, and in this perspective the SMs are 'the best army bar none.'

So younger target audience , want to play SMs , so GW up hype for SM appropriatley.
If GW is strapped for cash, a new SM chapter specific dex nets a good return from a few new special character models, and a re-gig of bits on the plastic spues.

Where as from a game play point of view, Orks and Dark Eldar Codex updates were much more warrented.But the time and effort required to rewrite the codex to bring it up to 4th ed, not to mention the work required for updating the model/mini range...

The point is, IF game play and game ballance are important to the games producer, they WILL support all armies equally.

IF marketing minatures IS the most important thing to a company.They will just release codexes that generate the most return for the amount of investment apropriate at that time.

And as we know GW is all about selling minatures.

So in my opinion the amount of 'Chapter Specific SM Codexes' is just cash flow related.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-04-2008, 19:27
That doesn't make sense as a business model.

Their "draft version" of the game had more support for non-Marines, and they then focused on selling Marines. This only makes sense as a business decision if Marines had proven to be so popular, that the organization was restructured to capitalize on this. Selling more armies in general, or armies with more figures as the popular base, would make the most sense in a vacuum.

RT wasn't a 'draft'. It was the 1st edition of 40k, based on WFB 3rd edition.

Remember, this is my personal theory. Everything pretty much corresponds to the buyout of GW by Brian Ansell and Citadel Miniatures in 1986, and the subsequent refocus on selling minis. I theorize that they saw greater marketing potential in space marines, as they have a 'cool factor' about them, and people often like to play the good guy and special forces. Consequently they likely focused on flogging marines more. This could be either a cause for, an effect of, or a simultaneous occurrence with marines being a player favorite.

Easy E
18-04-2008, 21:45
The bitter irony here is, in RT, Orks had 3 books.. Waaaaaaaargh! The Orks, Freebooters, and 'Ere we Go. Marines had none.

It is funny though that so many people bring up that GW is a business sort of as an apology for why there is a huge bias in 40k. (by the way, in parts of the world other than America, there actually is the concept of ethics and fairness in business.)

That was priceless. By the way, the new Ork Codex simply reprints a LOT of material from those early books. The stormboy entyr in particular is almost word for word from the original entry in WAAAAGH! Da Orks.

A lot of people say only GW has the number about what sells well. Personally, I'm not convinced they have a very good grasp of what WOULD sell well and what wouldn't sell well. Notice, I am using the future tense. They have NO R&D research for their future developments that I can think of.

Templar Ben
19-04-2008, 00:22
I actually did consider the reverse. If you look at my initial post on the subject, I mention that the support/popularity seesaw has been going for so long now that we don't really know which came first. My personal opinion, going on the fact that Rogue Trader had more support for Chaos and Orks than it did for marines, is that GW put effort into bolstering marine popularity.

That said, I've already noted that neither can be proven, but nowadays, it's a cycle that feeds itself to the detriment of the 40k game as a whole.

I did a little digging. You may find this quote interesting
Warhammer 40,000 players will be only too aware that, on the tabletop, Space Marines often fail to live up to their fearsome reputation. A couple of years ago, when the game first came out, Space Marines were easily able to take on the likes of Orks, Eldar and whatever else the WH40K player cared to throw at them. However, over the ensuing years new models and new rules for their enemies have gradually shifted the balance of power, so that the once Mighty Space Marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!

We know that the Space Marines are humanity’s finest, that they do not run away from aliens, and that their current status on the wargames table does not reflect their true worth. In order to rectify this we’ve been thinking about bringing the Space Marine rules up to date. Plans are going ahead for a new book full of Space Marine history, colour schemes, and gaming rules – but it will be a while before this is ready for publication.

As a foretaste we would like to introduce a few new rules for the space Marines now. Not only will this bring Space Marines back into line with other forces, but it will also give you a chance to try out the rules and let us know what you think. So, if you have a Space Marine force why not write and tell us how you get along with the new rules.
I take that as them saying they made Space Marines as the kick butt army. Then they released rules for Orks and Eldar that made Space Marines look weak. After this passage they released the book that bumped up Space Marines.

Given that I am thinking it was less about marketing and more about Space Marines being a "games designer pet".


A lot of people say only GW has the number about what sells well. Personally, I'm not convinced they have a very good grasp of what WOULD sell well and what wouldn't sell well. Notice, I am using the future tense. They have NO R&D research for their future developments that I can think of.

I agree. GW has never asked me what I want. They have no idea how to get my money and slowly the percentage they get has been slipping.

Rioghan Murchadha
19-04-2008, 19:53
I did a little digging. You may find this quote interesting I take that as them saying they made Space Marines as the kick butt army. Then they released rules for Orks and Eldar that made Space Marines look weak. After this passage they released the book that bumped up Space Marines.
Well, they released the rules for orks, and eldar, and such at the same time (All in the initial RT book). However, marines were T3, and had only a 4+ save. In the RT 40k compilation, there are 3 articles entitled "Space Marine Toughness", "Space Marine Power Armour" and "Space Marine Morale". The first one took them up to the T4 we know and love. The second gave them the now ubiquitous 3+ save, and the last was the precursor to ATSKNF. At this time was also when the marine creation process went from just psycho-conditioning and the black carapace to the full blown gene-seed 29 different organ implant thing it is now.


Given that I am thinking it was less about marketing and more about Space Marines being a "games designer pet".
It's entirely possible. Just look at what happened in fantasy when devs got to write army books for their favorite armies.. (Allessio & Skaven for eg.)

Templar Ben
19-04-2008, 20:23
Well, they released the rules for orks, and eldar, and such at the same time (All in the initial RT book). However, marines were T3, and had only a 4+ save. In the RT 40k compilation, there are 3 articles entitled "Space Marine Toughness", "Space Marine Power Armour" and "Space Marine Morale". The first one took them up to the T4 we know and love. The second gave them the now ubiquitous 3+ save, and the last was the precursor to ATSKNF. At this time was also when the marine creation process went from just psycho-conditioning and the black carapace to the full blown gene-seed 29 different organ implant thing it is now.

I am glad you wrote about that. It caused me to do some research. RT Rulebook page 155 had this.


Individual Chapter Commanders are free to organize or augment their regular troops in any way they see fit, and a variety of musical instruments may be brought into the fray.

You've come a long way baby. LOL


It's entirely possible. Just look at what happened in fantasy when devs got to write army books for their favorite armies.. (Allessio & Skaven for eg.)

Not that it is unique to GW. D'rzzt in Forgotten Realms is the same way.

Rioghan Murchadha
19-04-2008, 22:00
I am glad you wrote about that. It caused me to do some research. RT Rulebook page 155 had this.



You've come a long way baby. LOL



Not that it is unique to GW. D'rzzt in Forgotten Realms is the same way.

Yeah, but at least Drizzt was only a character in a series of novels, and people didn't have to play against him... They only brought out game stats for him because of overwhelming fanboi demand.

I sort of wish my 40k armies could still have musicians though.. would go a long way towards working out all those tied combats..