Discussing balance in AoS

[whispersofblood]

59 minutes ago, stratigo said:

What outlandish beliefs?

 

Also, if you don't measure the effects of player skill, why are you so certain it is skill that is the primary factor in who wins a match? Perhaps it isn't, perhaps this conceit is only because it makes you feel like you have more agency than you actually do in a game. This isn't an uncommon sentiment. The best real measure for financial success is how much money your parents had, but people consistently feel that working hard can compensate for that (with the dark converse that the people who don't see success are lazy). 

 

Perhaps the real measure of "Skill" is the ability to recognize what is the most busted list and having the means to buy and play it? 

All that can be true and some people can have more ability, experience, and relevant immediate practice. I'm pretty sure when the AoS statistics took off THW stats indicated something like a .7 correlation between player skill and results. I was skeptical of that number as very few things in the world have a correlation that high but I wouldn't be shocked if it was .6, that is a very strong correlation.

Take for example the mirrormatch top table match from the weekend. Decision making decided that match, imo the stronger list lost. See also Fangs of Sotek v. Boulderhead. Most people lose games because they aren't as good as the person across from them. What "good" means can incorporate a lot of things. But, I've played a lot of games of Whfb, a lot of games or AoS, and other games besides. Player skill is a dominant indicator of success, once you give players the capacity to make free choices. But, realistically if you can't buy models you are at an insurmountable disadvantage, so it's not really worth discussing in regards to "balance".

[stratigo]

35 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

All that can be true and some people can have more ability, experience, and relevant immediate practice. I'm pretty sure when the AoS statistics took off THW stats indicated something like a .7 correlation between player skill and results. I was skeptical of that number as very few things in the world have a correlation that high but I wouldn't be shocked if it was .6, that is a very strong correlation.

Take for example the mirrormatch top table match from the weekend. Decision making decided that match, imo the stronger list lost. See also Fangs of Sotek v. Boulderhead. Most people lose games because they aren't as good as the person across from them. What "good" means can incorporate a lot of things. But, I've played a lot of games of Whfb, a lot of games or AoS, and other games besides. Player skill is a dominant indicator of success, once you give players the capacity to make free choices. But, realistically if you can't buy models you are at an insurmountable disadvantage, so it's not really worth discussing in regards to "balance".

Or player skill just feels like the dominant indicator because we all want to feel like we have more control over events than not. Realistically, the most skilled players take the best lists, so, like, it doesn't matter that much in AoS because there isn't really a difference here. The best list and most skilled player are the same thing nine times out of ten.

[Battlefury]

2 hours ago, Athrawes said:

Balance in AOS seems to be in a pretty great place to me, in comparison with 40k and 8th edition fantasy.

The majority of armies seem to be in the fat middle of win rates.

And that seems like a good place to be.

Looks like that, yes. BUT, not only looking at competetive games only, the big gap between the best and the worst armies is too big, to justify the "rule of cool" while buying and choosing an army in any way. That will curse the long time game experience for certain people drastically.

What would you think? Would it be a good thing if the community just creates inofficial Army Books on their own, just like this one?
http://www.mengelminiatures.com/2017/03/the-unofficial-tomb-kings-battletome.html

[NinthMusketeer]

Building a strong list is part of player skill just as much as using it.

[stratigo]

6 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Building a strong list is part of player skill just as much as using it.

Yes, which is why the discussion of how lists don't matter compared to player skill is nonsense. A good player will be taking a good list if they are looking to win.

[Icarion]

34 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Looks like that, yes. BUT, not only looking at competetive games only, the big gap between the best and the worst armies is too big, to justify the "rule of cool" while buying and choosing an army in any way. That will curse the long time game experience for certain people drastically.
 

 But that has literally always been the case.

If the fear is that AOS's lack of balance will drive away new players, because of bad early matchups, there is more than 30+ years of evidence to prove that is a bogus concern.

Warhammer games have never had the kind of balance where you can pick anything, and have a good time playing against anything, and yet, for 30+ years the hobby has grown and is bigger than ever.

Does poor balance drive away some players? Maybe.

A meaningful amount? That requires drastic recorrection of game balance? If sales are anything to go by, and tournament participation, AOS is more popular than ever, so clearly more people are being drawn into the game than are being driven away.

[eekamouse]

9 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

 But that has literally always been the case.

If the fear is that AOS's lack of balance will drive away new players, because of bad early matchups, there is more than 30+ years of evidence to prove that is a bogus concern.

Warhammer games have never had the kind of balance where you can pick anything, and have a good time playing against anything, and yet, for 30+ years the hobby has grown and is bigger than ever.

Does poor balance drive away some players? Maybe.

A meaningful amount? That requires drastic recorrection of game balance? If sales are anything to go by, and tournament participation, AOS is more popular than ever, so clearly more people are being drawn into the game than are being driven away.

As someone who is still relatively new to this side of the hobby, my experience has been dictated by the players around as much as the game itself. The first few games I played in a tournament/store setting was with my Destruction faction (Ogors and Beastclaw) back in first edition. When I went up against stuff like Sylvaneth and Sayl or other strong stuff, the folks at the shop just let me know, "You're going to get smoked". And we played through scenarios of what I may or may not do in certain situations. And other games, they would throw stuff like Tomb Kings at me, or whatever "Cities of Sigmar" was called back then.

I had an understanding that some matchups would be rough. Communication was the key to a pleasant experience. It's just like Magic or any CCG. You can bring your kitted out tournament deck or put together some fun jank. Or, put two new-ish players together. 

The main difference is the time investment... and to some degree the money invested. But the money investment really... is not that much different. That's a myth. Really, it's the time investment of painting vs deck building, and the games are about 3 to 8 times longer.

Edited April 20, 2021 by eekamouse

[Battlefury]

Let us dive into a fictive scenario:

2 Friends decide to get into AoS. Both of them have enough money to buy a 2000 points army.
Regardless on what they buy, should they have an equal chance to win when playing against each other?

For me the answer is a clear: Yes.

Is it like that at the moment: No.

[Icarion]

2 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Let us dive into a fictive scenario:

2 Friends decide to get into AoS. Both of them have enough money to buy a 2000 points army.
Regardless on what they buy, should they have an equal chance to win when playing against each other?

For me the answer is a clear: Yes.

Is it like that at the moment: No.

And it never has been. 

Balance in aos seems to be no worse than balance in any version of warhammer published thus far.

[Battlefury]

Just now, Athrawes said:

And it never has been. 

Balance in aos seems to be no worse than balance in any version of warhammer published thus far.

Might well be. But should it be? That's the question we shall agree on. And that's why I ask you to choose, before we discuss further.

[Icarion]

 

3 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Might well be. But should it be? That's the question we shall agree on. And that's why I ask you to choose, before we discuss further.

 Of course wanting better balance is a great goal to have, but gamesworkshop games have never, and likely will never be able to have the perfect balance a lot of gamers argue they crave.

Warhammer is warhammer, and not chess, because of the wacky and weird things that are capable in game. There are too many armies, with too many miniatures, and too many rules interaction to make true balance realistic. The only way to have a perfect balance is to iron out all of that flavorful wackyness. 

And honestly, if they did that, I imagine far more players would leave the game than would be retained thanks to excellent balance.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Athrawes

[Battlefury]

2 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

And honestly, if they did that, I imagine far more players would leave the game than would be retained thanks to excellent balance.

Why do you think that?

[Icarion]

Because there are tons of other games out there, with tighter balance, and yet GW continues to dominate the market. 

Their rules have always sucked, balance has always been fairly loose. But still more people join their game than are driven away. 

Edit: In my 20+ years of experience, the people who continue to play warhammer do so FOR the weirdness, the oddities of game design in warhammer systems that prevent perfect balance. I've seen lots of people try these games, find out it's not for them and move on. But the people who are still around me, still playing, edition after edition seem to do so out of love for the oddities and quirkiness of the gameplay.

And if those quirks get ironed out in the pursuit of a balance GW games have never represented, I imagine many of those players would move on as well. Not all, but many.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Athrawes

[Battlefury]

I see your point and would agree on it partially. The games have never been that balanced.

Since noone of us can change stuff anyway, would we maybe create our own books? With that I don't mean to entirely change them, just change, what needs to be changed. Of course I know, that there won't be a 100% balance, and thatÄs not necessary. But it could be better, maybe to bring the armies from basically 5 tier ( A to E ) to 3 tiers, maybe 2.

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, Athrawes said:

 But that has literally always been the case.

If the fear is that AOS's lack of balance will drive away new players, because of bad early matchups, there is more than 30+ years of evidence to prove that is a bogus concern.

Warhammer games have never had the kind of balance where you can pick anything, and have a good time playing against anything, and yet, for 30+ years the hobby has grown and is bigger than ever.

Does poor balance drive away some players? Maybe.

A meaningful amount? That requires drastic recorrection of game balance? If sales are anything to go by, and tournament participation, AOS is more popular than ever, so clearly more people are being drawn into the game than are being driven away.

One of their games literally died and the other took a hammering for years when it was at its absolutely least balance. Balance has some effect on the success of the game.

[Icarion]

10 minutes ago, stratigo said:

One of their games literally died and the other took a hammering for years when it was at its absolutely least balance. Balance has some effect on the success of the game.

Oh I agree that balance has an effect on the survivability of a game.

I just don't think the sales data supports that balance in aos is bad to any reasonable comparison with other GW games.

I'd also argue that warhammer fantasy dying had more to do the expense of starting the game than balance. Both 40k and AoS have a much lower price barrier to entry than fantasy 8th edition. To support that I'd simply say that GW is making more money than ever as a measuring stick of how popular their products are.

[Battlefury]

15 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

Oh I agree that balance has an effect on the survivability of a game.

I just don't think the sales data supports that balance in aos is bad to any reasonable comparison with other GW games.

I'd also argue that warhammer fantasy dying had more to do the expense of starting the game than balance. Both 40k and AoS have a much lower price barrier to entry than fantasy 8th edition. To support that I'd simply say that GW is making more money than ever as a measuring stick of how popular their products are.

The game is certainly so popular, because GW maintains the market leading position and therefore a lot of people are playing the game. Adding to this more people who get into it, because their friends play it. A lot of people are also what are called "Fanboys", who defend GW no matter what they do.

WHFB was changed to AoS, because it reached a ridiculous level of balance AND the company had to let some of the design license ( Bretonnia, and so on ) go, because they didn't have the rights on it.

GW making more money is also due to the price creep, where they subtile increase the prices of several nre products.

Anyway I think that a company making money on a product is clearly not a measurement how good the product is.

[Overread]

16 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

The game is certainly so popular, because GW maintains the market leading position and therefore a lot of people are playing the game. Adding to this more people who get into it, because their friends play it. A lot of people are also what are called "Fanboys", who defend GW no matter what they do.

WHFB was changed to AoS, because it reached a ridiculous level of balance AND the company had to let some of the design license ( Bretonnia, and so on ) go, because they didn't have the rights on it.

Licence holding had nothing to do with GW axing Bretonnia. 

Old World to AoS was not a clear cut sensible situation and was based on flared marketing and management ideas. Namely GW wasn't using user feedback and from interviews that are around the net its clear that even the plans for AoS got mangled by middlemanagers under the old system. Which resulted in them throwing out the rules for the game (yes it had serious rules and points) and adopting what we got at AoS's launch.

It was also a monumental bad example of marketing. GW hyped up Old World, sunk resources into it; gave it attention, new models, updates and then dropped the ball on it like a lump of hot lead without any warning. I would wager that Old World could have easily become as popular if not more so, as AoS is is today if the management of today were running the show back then. 

 

 

That is not to say I don't like AoS, just that the reasoning for it existing was not sound management. Heck it took until 2.0 for Gw to really turn things around for AoS and its worked; freaking heck its getting some of the best creative work out of GW right now; but it took a huge amount to reach that including big changes to GW management staff. 

 

 

As for licences in specifics; note that nothing NOTHING in AoS is unique enough to be fully protected by licencing laws. The names can be, the actual sculpt of the model is, the full stats can sort of be. The actual concept of the models; the design ethos of them; the army type and nature; all that is totally unprotected. There are multiple firms making giant walking lizards and rats and winged women and vampires and all those other things. Heck considering vampires (soulblight) are next lets consider that vampires and zomebies and skeletons are popular and super old and there are loads of alternatives. 

GW could have easily protected Bretonnia by renaming things and it would have achieved the same level of protection as anything under AoS right now. It's removal was sales and other internal GW madness of the old management. 

[Icarion]

@Battlefury

Well there we disagree strongly. A company making money on a product is one of the only ways we have to objectively determine whether people think their product is good.

 

There are cheaper or even free hobbies while Warhammer products are expensive.  You can find almost all the rules for free online. You can even buy cheaper alternative models from other companies or cheaper still 3d print your own.

yet year after year GWs profits soar, and if you adjust for inflation their price markups aren't that drastic over 20 years, so it seems the only conclusion that we can realistically draw from that data is that something about the warhammer game draws people in a keeps them there as a customer.

They have a good product so sayeth the market.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Athrawes

[LuminethMage]

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

Who is he? You mean AoSshorts. He's using twitter to update his graphs?

 

*Checks*

 

So he is... wow. So, yeah, iunno, but twitter is NOT a good place to store information. It is incredibly ephemeral and prevents any form of long form information. Like, I wanted to see where he, essentially, showed his work and gave an explanation of his process, but you can't really do that on twitter. If there anywhere else he posts this that includes analysis? 

I'm really craving some analysis to these graphs. And, like, I know this isn't an exhaustive list of TTS tournaments. It just makes me feel like there's this lack of organization among TOs and commentators/analyts in getting good date collection in a way that 40k has nailed down much better. 

 

Wait, this DKHM graph is labeled april 2020? What does that mean? I mean is that a type and they mean april 2021? Or is this all data SINCE april 2020? XD also there's a lot of spanish and I don't read that. There's actually a lot of weirdness going back to the original source of the dataset, so I don't know what to make of this and can't follow the explanations well.

 

I did mean the honest wargamer. Dunno why I keep abbreviating it as THO, I've done it a lot. Is weird. But THW does show tournament wins after the winrates.  But this dataset is getting increasingly dated now. There are some newer ones via their streams/youtube with their reoccurring Age of Sigmar stats segment, which come with analysis, but aren't written down (that I can find). Which does frustrate trying to link it for easy consumption.

So, you got nothing, right? Where are the 11 tournament wins? What makes you think they are top 3, when even the TTS based on THW statistics you watch and apparently think are the gold standard on data analysis in AoS aren’t showing it? I know they update them every week, I’m watching those shows regularly myself. Please point me to one where Lumineth are wining many tournaments and come over as exceptionally strong. You can easily link to a Twitch/YouTube video, I'm happy to watch it. 

DKHM obviously means since the GHB 2020 was released until now (April 2021, 2020 is a typo). Which you can see from the file showing which tournaments they included in their analysis (which they included in the same tweed as reference). 

 

13 hours ago, Battlefury said:

Also, I had a chat with my local GW store manager about growing the community. For about 3 years we only had 2 new players here.
The manager told me, that a lot of people come in, buy something they like and don't show up again.
I asked, what the last bought. It has been 2 friends, who wanted to play together. One bought FEC with the new Battletome ( pre errata ) , the other bought Nighthaunt.

We can already see, why they didn't come back.

This is true the other way round too though - where people complain about new armies being OP or NPE without ever having played against them themselves. Just repeating something they heard from others or a video by someone who isn't neutral themselves. This all shapes your impression. If you heard that army X isn't fun for several weeks and then play against them, it's likely you'll find something that's not fun.

Even in this thread you have someone who said they can't/won't use their new Lumineth army because of the impression they are un-fun or OP, and goes back to playing his Nighthaunt. In my case I'd just stop playing the game, if I had the same problem. Which luckily I don't have.

A substantial part of all this balance/NPE talk functions intentionally and unintentionally as gatekeeping. You think you'd come back if you finally got your shiny new army and everyone refuses to play with you because they are OP, or NPE? And that's with almost every new army that comes out. OBR had the same problem, Mortek Guard can't be killed easily - no fun. People don't like shooting, or magic or getting alpha-striked or anything they don't enjoy playing themselves and therefore don't do. But would like the opponent also to adhere to their own standards, because apparently otherwise it's not fun for them.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by LuminethMage

[wayniac]

I think for me one of the biggest frustrations has been for years now I have defended vehemently that if you are not playing against people who are running tournament level lists, and I'm not even talking about the ridiculously broken S tier ones, that you can pretty much pick what appeals to you and have at least a decent chance, barring luck, for a well played game against a similarly chosen list. I have pushed this mindset on people that I have met who are interested in the game and I have strongly believed that it is the case. 

I just was having a conversation with someone who was against the idea of telling someone to buy what appeals to them and instead push them towards the strong units and armies while ignoring the weaker ones, the idea being that you don't want them to waste their time. I understand that completely, but at the same time I know personally that my first impression of a game, if I was brand new and interested in it and the first thing I was told is not which army or aesthetic appeals to you but avoid these four armies entirely because they're garbage and then ignore all of these units for the army you like and focus on these three because they're good, would have been "why is this a game I want to play".

After all who would want to play a game where they are told the army they like, which is constantly pitched as the way you should decide what to play, will result in them auto losing against pretty much anyone playing even a decent army with little to no chance of winning because the company writing the rules isn't interested in balance. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by wayniac

[stratigo]

2 hours ago, Athrawes said:

@Battlefury

Well there we disagree strongly. A company making money on a product is one of the only ways we have to objectively determine whether people think their product is good.

 

There are cheaper or even free hobbies while Warhammer products are expensive.  You can find almost all the rules for free online. You can even buy cheaper alternative models from other companies or cheaper still 3d print your own.

yet year after year GWs profits soar, and if you adjust for inflation their price markups aren't that drastic over 20 years, so it seems the only conclusion that we can realistically draw from that data is that something about the warhammer game draws people in a keeps them there as a customer.

They have a good product so sayeth the market.

This is a very limited, and honestly terrifying way to judge good and bad.

 

A company can do a lot of things to make sure their game remains the dominant one, and much of it doesn't have anything to do with good or bad. 

 

2 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

So, you got nothing, right? Where are the 11 tournament wins? What makes you think they are top 3, when even the TTS based on THW statistics you watch and apparently think are the gold standard on data analysis in AoS aren’t showing it? I know they update them every week, I’m watching those shows regularly myself. Please point me to one where Lumineth are wining many tournaments and come over as exceptionally strong. You can easily link to a Twitch/YouTube video, I'm happy to watch it. 

DKHM obviously means since the GHB 2020 was released until now (April 2021, 2020 is a typo). Which you can see from the file showing which tournaments they included in their analysis (which they included in the same tweed as reference). 

 

This is true the other way round too though - where people complain about new armies being OP or NPE without ever having played against them themselves. Just repeating something they heard from others or a video by someone who isn't neutral themselves. This all shapes your impression. If you heard that army X isn't fun for several weeks and then play against them, it's likely you'll find something that's not fun.

Even in this thread you have someone who said they can't/won't use their new Lumineth army because of the impression they are un-fun or OP, and goes back to playing his Nighthaunt. In my case I'd just stop playing the game, if I had the same problem. Which luckily I don't have.

A substantial part of all this balance/NPE talk functions intentionally and unintentionally as gatekeeping. You think you'd come back if you finally got your shiny new army and everyone refuses to play with you because they are OP, or NPE? And that's with almost every new army that comes out. OBR had the same problem, Mortek Guard can't be killed easily - no fun. People don't like shooting, or magic or getting alpha-striked or anything they don't enjoy playing themselves and therefore don't do. But would like the opponent also to adhere to their own standards, because apparently otherwise it's not fun for them.  

They had the third highest number of top finishes in literally the THW link you posted. Which is roughly where they sit fairly consistently. 

 

Third is just because I like numbering things, the top five or so factions tend to be a very rough place, I think Seraphons and IDK show up so consistently at the top that they are the best, while LRL also show fairly consistent next to the other three armies (KO, Tzeentch, DoK). 

 

Legit I just wanted to know where you were getting your numbers because I couldn't find them, and am disappointed that they get presented with so little context given via twitter. 

 

2 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think for me one of the biggest frustrations has been for years now I have defended vehemently that if you are not playing against people who are running tournament level lists, and I'm not even talking about the ridiculously broken S tier ones, that you can pretty much pick what appeals to you and have at least a decent chance, barring luck, for a well played game against a similarly chosen list. I have pushed this mindset on people that I have met who are interested in the game and I have strongly believed that it is the case. 

I just was having a conversation with someone who was against the idea of telling someone to buy what appeals to them and instead push them towards the strong units and armies while ignoring the weaker ones, the idea being that you don't want them to waste their time. I understand that completely, but at the same time I know personally that my first impression of a game, if I was brand new and interested in it and the first thing I was told is not which army or aesthetic appeals to you but avoid these four armies entirely because they're garbage and then ignore all of these units for the army you like and focus on these three because they're good, would have been "why is this a game I want to play". 

The first question you ask is "Why do you want to collect?" There's pplenty of reasons to. If you are into hobbying, then a unit's power level doesn't matter in the slightest. If you want to have fun gaming, but not necessarily be competitive, then there are some armies and units you should avoid. And if you want to compete, then your choices narrow considerably. It all depends on the consumer and what they are looking to get out of the game.

[Icarion]

16 minutes ago, stratigo said:

This is a very limited, and honestly terrifying way to judge good and bad.

So your argument is that people spend tons of money on a product which is bad? We are talking about a luxury item which people are under zero obligation to purchase. They buy this product despite there being plentiful cheaper versions, or even the option to print their own?

And this is the product you think people view as bad?

I suppose the truth can be terrifying.

 

[Kadeton]

11 hours ago, stratigo said:

But like, have you read this thread? And all the other about balance over the years? I want to assume you have at least read THIS thread. Okay. People are and have regularly posted specific and more general examples of where balance is an issue. So you sliding in and going "I demand you post more examples" feels like bad faith in a way that feels familiar to people trolling politics discussions. It's a way to damage the discourse by continuously demanding people spend time providing and citing sources that have already been provided and cited. And then you can wait a few weeks and do it again. If you had read the thread, or any of the dozen other threads on the topic, you really shouldn't have felt the need to demand more examples, because those examples are already there. This really bothers me because it is really so insidious, and like it doesn't even always register to the person doing it just how insidious and damaging to the discourse doing this really is.

I want to be charitable and say you aren't intentionally doing this, but intentional or not, you are hurting the discussion using fallacies, and in a way that has been done repeatedly before. 

Fair enough, and sorry that it came across that way. From my perspective, what we get from people is pages and pages of "The game is completely broken and unplayable, the armies I hate are unbeatable in any circumstances, GW puts no effort into balancing whatsoever," and on and on.

When you ask people to provide examples of what they're talking about, you can cut through to what's actually bothering them on a personal level - balance is ultimately all about feelings, not numbers. When you do that, and press those people who are complaining on what's bothering them specifically, it can cut through their emotionally-charged hyperbole about the entire game being fundamentally broken, and you find out that what they actually meant by all the stuff they were saying is "I'm really struggling to win games with my Stormcast Eternals."

That's where the actual discourse happens, in my opinion. "My army is having a hard time for X reasons" is useful, addressable feedback. "The whole game is broken and needs to be fixed" is an absolutely useless thing to express. It's really easy to get sucked into online discussions which feed back and amplify that negative energy until everyone agrees that everything is awful (and anyone who doesn't agree gets aggressively shouted down). Asking people to provide examples from their own experience is just a way of trying to bring things back into perspective.

So it's not about assembling a litany of examples - no question, we already have tons of those. It's about grounding the discussion, and getting people to talk about their personal experiences rather than wildly extrapolating into sweeping statements about the entire playerbase. Because that's what is actually hurting the discussion, as far as I can see.

[stratigo]

9 minutes ago, Athrawes said:

So your argument is that people spend tons of money on a product which is bad? We are talking about a luxury item which people are under zero obligation to purchase. They buy this product despite there being plentiful cheaper versions, or even the option to print their own?

And this is the product you think people view as bad?

I suppose the truth can be terrifying.

 

Yes, people spend tons of money of bad products all the time.

 

I warrant most people here are using computers running windows 10 for example.

 

The quality of a product is hardly the only way a product can be pushed for sales. It is just one way. Market dominance is, itself, an extremely strong tool for continued market dominance, just like having rich parents is the strongest indicator that you will most likely be rich as well. Ease of access is another dimension where an inferior product can garner more profit. And just good old marketing can cause a product to be selected over a superior one. I mean, this is all pretty basic. If you are working from the idea that "That which makes the most profit is the best" you start ending in places that justify all sorts of very nasty actions on behalf of corporations.

 

And, of course, game quality is not model quality and GW generally has fairly consistently good quality, and perhaps more importantly, easy to put together models.