Discussing the quality of rules in AoS

[stratigo]

On 5/28/2021 at 8:07 AM, PrimeElectrid said:

It is interesting that the idea of bin guy/sin guy is gaining steam now when the concept has been around for yonks, if only indirectly. 8th edition definitely had bin and sin books and I, an old grognard, distinctly remember the arguments whether GW does/doesn’t make new models OP to sell them (they don’t and never have).

What all of this boils down to is consistency, or the lack thereof, whether that’s whole tomes or individual units as in the past. You can’t even draw any trends: sometimes sin guy is a brand new arm, sometimes it’s a refresh. There’s no pattern to it. This was the same with models: sometimes a new model was strong, sometimes a new model was weak, sometimes an old weak model was made strong, sometimes an old strong model was made weak, sometimes an old strong model remained strong, sometimes an old weak model remained weak.

This inconsistency can only suggest that GW rules team have too much work to do and not enough time available to ensure everything is at roughly the same level. There is no control for quality. Unfortunately to us mere mortals it appears that every book is a coinflip.

Actually the other suggestion is that lead times and release schedules are so out of whack that what we’re seeing here is delayed different design ethos ie all the sin stuff written at one time and all the bin stuff at another, under different leads/principles/policies, but the actual releases are intermingled.

They provably have in the past.

 

And they probably still do? Why wouldn't they? GW isn't stupid, you push a model, people buy it. They need to not make it too obvious. But, like, they don't have to hide it too hard either. 40k right now has this the most obvious with dramatic power boosts every codex, but each new cycle being better than before (drukhari and admech stronger than before). Albeit I think the rules writers of 40k are just writing with a more coherent vision then the writers of AoS. 

 

Also, Gav thorpe might burst into the writing room and shout "MORE ELVES!"

 

On 5/28/2021 at 9:43 AM, Zappgrot said:

While i tink the battle tomes varry a bit in strength both internaly and externaly. I don't think AOS is all that bad.  40K has a way worse 7th 8th and now 9th see codexes that dominate the competative scene solo. While also haveing armies that might as well just stay in the box for all the power lvl they contain.  HH is lot better but even there you see that some armies can't compete at all. (good luck playing word bearers vs iron warriors).  And some battle tomes might be a bit bland. But I heavily prefer that over the way 40k is now. Whit  dozens of  inbalanced relics, warlord traits and  stratagems all  fighting for the players atention. It makes 40k a combo fest where some combos break te game in to while others are comleet snoze.  Makeing the game less fun to play. You get the impresion that list building matters way more then what you do in the actual game. (well appart from lucking out on who starts or not) I pray to the dice gods that aos 3.0 stays bland.  Cause if it gets as "spicy"as 40k It might end up giving me indegestion and going down the toilet. 

AoS and 40k ping pong on who is actually worse based on actual statistics. Usually down to a god codex. Old Slaanesh had win rates that only drukhari are putting up right now (beyond old ironhands even). And put them up for something like a year, so we'll see where drukhari end up in a month.

On 5/29/2021 at 7:35 AM, Greybeard86 said:

This has been discussed to death, though. GW are equivalent to basic manners & politeness. With strangers, they ensure less bumpy communication / interaction, but you may replace them with your own set for rules with friends (inside jokes, better understanding of intent).

If you play mostly in a close-knit environment, GW's rules be darned. Though it does take effort to replace them, and you might not want to go through the trouble. But if you play frequently with strangers, they are a strong default.

I believe that Swedish competitive rules and other player-driven efforts are a good compromise. But GW does try to compete with such efforts, since it takes away power from them. Ultimately, I believe GW has too many bad incentives and we'd be better with others making "competitive standard rules".

 

Actually the GW only thing I see most pushed is models, and this is the most damaging to consumers. But, like, obvious why GW pushes it so hard.

 

On 5/29/2021 at 7:39 AM, Greybeard86 said:

Well, I think that it is true that it can develop quickly. Ultimately, though, I'd say most people here find some aspect of the game to be good enough to stick around. The critical bit comes with the hobby, I'd say

But at the end of the day, you can simply ignore such posts? I am not sure if there is an ignore function here, but scrolling past some posts shouldn't be too hard. Plus the mods do take out the louder grumbling.

 

People actually play it :D.

 

Samer with 40k really. 

 

Especially as we tease out of covid era.

 

I have looked at other wargames, but the effort to get into and find a community to play them is significantly higher. Warhammer is a huge convenience. I have a place to go filled with, well 50/50 people I rather like and horrible scumbags. But that's life. Other communities require a LOT more effort to break in to. Maybe as I try to get involve more with the people I actually like in my locale I'll find other games to play with em. But, man, lot of these folks have young kids these days, so, it's not exactly easy to get any games. 

On 5/29/2021 at 9:10 AM, Feii said:

Dont know dude. IDK being a top tier army since their release? Same goes for DoK. LRL are at least an A tier army. Half of the BR books is about them and they are moving the narrative forward the most. They have the most Gods, Lore time and consistently the best rules. 
 

calling SCE primaris is just cringe and false at this point.

 

being fair, while they don't have the lore dominance, elves have been the top power army in 40k for most of that game's history. Right now even it is the evil elf flavor's time to shine. But if you pick any given year of 40k, most of the time it would be an elf army winning top tables.

 

I just think GW design space has always super graced elves because they have always been the combo specialist faction, and that has usually led to them outperforming.

 

On 5/29/2021 at 2:59 PM, Feii said:

Depends what you like but because no other company has 25 armies with rules and if fun to you means a lot of armies witht heir standalone rules then you have a hard time to find something better than GW 

 

having that said a lot of skirmish games has better rules than GW skirmish games. I also think the core rules of gw big games are 9/10 BUT they carry the army rules hard. 
 

To be fair vince and uncle adam made probably better rules for a skirmish game than a multibillion company...

Kings of War has always done rank and flank better than warhammer fantasy.

 

And I guess it now wins the default of rank and flank king since GW abrogated it and ninth age was always a meme. 

 

But, as a game, generally Kings of War has more solid balance than AoS.

 

On 5/30/2021 at 5:18 AM, Fred1245 said:

This is actually not correct, at least without a ton more qualifiers. Space Wolves were a top tier army in 5th until GK came out and was possibly the most OP faction 40k had seen up until then. 6th edition marines were decent but in 7th marines were a top tier army from when their codex came out to the end of the edition(battle company and all the many flavors of marine death stars) then in the indexes marines were crazy OP until multiple stormraven nerfs then marines were the best by default due to being the first codex.

So some flavor of marine has been top tier since at least 5th.

 

You are quite wrong. 

 

Space marines tends to rock the power of the early meta by virtue of having the first book out. But this drops precipitously as an edition goes on. 5th had eldar rocking the top far more than the wolves ever did, though GK were, indeed, OP.

 

No marine combo, from Smashf* to all the free razorbacks to droppod assault could touch eldar or the truly gross taudar in 7th

 

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Yeah, WotC isn't a benchmark you want to achieve, they have quite a bit of powercreep in editions and phase out cards very regularely.

D&D isn't much better, with WotC unable to admit they can make any mistakes, as well as, again, powercreep.

Paizo would be a better company to look at, but there's a massive cultural divide there.

I mean, for funsies, compare AoS to Middle earth SBG and wonder why the heck a company that makes such a poorly balanced game made such a well balanced one.

 

I mean the answer is that SBG doesn't churn its meta so massively radically and its writers have historically been just better at competitive gaming.

[Zappgrot]

4 minutes ago, stratigo said:

They provably have in the past.

 

And they probably still do? Why wouldn't they? GW isn't stupid, you push a model, people buy it. They need to not make it too obvious. But, like, they don't have to hide it too hard either. 40k right now has this the most obvious with dramatic power boosts every codex, but each new cycle being better than before (drukhari and admech stronger than before). Albeit I think the rules writers of 40k are just writing with a more coherent vision then the writers of AoS. 

 

Also, Gav thorpe might burst into the writing room and shout "MORE ELVES!"

 

AoS and 40k ping pong on who is actually worse based on actual statistics. Usually down to a god codex. Old Slaanesh had win rates that only drukhari are putting up right now (beyond old ironhands even). And put them up for something like a year, so we'll see where drukhari end up in a month.

 

Actually the GW only thing I see most pushed is models, and this is the most damaging to consumers. But, like, obvious why GW pushes it so hard.

 

 

People actually play it :D.

 

Samer with 40k really. 

 

Especially as we tease out of covid era.

 

I have looked at other wargames, but the effort to get into and find a community to play them is significantly higher. Warhammer is a huge convenience. I have a place to go filled with, well 50/50 people I rather like and horrible scumbags. But that's life. Other communities require a LOT more effort to break in to. Maybe as I try to get involve more with the people I actually like in my locale I'll find other games to play with em. But, man, lot of these folks have young kids these days, so, it's not exactly easy to get any games. 

 

being fair, while they don't have the lore dominance, elves have been the top power army in 40k for most of that game's history. Right now even it is the evil elf flavor's time to shine. But if you pick any given year of 40k, most of the time it would be an elf army winning top tables.

 

I just think GW design space has always super graced elves because they have always been the combo specialist faction, and that has usually led to them outperforming.

 

Kings of War has always done rank and flank better than warhammer fantasy.

 

And I guess it now wins the default of rank and flank king since GW abrogated it and ninth age was always a meme. 

 

But, as a game, generally Kings of War has more solid balance than AoS.

 

 

You are quite wrong. 

 

Space marines tends to rock the power of the early meta by virtue of having the first book out. But this drops precipitously as an edition goes on. 5th had eldar rocking the top far more than the wolves ever did, though GK were, indeed, OP.

 

No marine combo, from Smashf* to all the free razorbacks to droppod assault could touch eldar or the truly gross taudar in 7th

 

I mean, for funsies, compare AoS to Middle earth SBG and wonder why the heck a company that makes such a poorly balanced game made such a well balanced one.

 

I mean the answer is that SBG doesn't churn its meta so massively radically and its writers have historically been just better at competitive gaming.

Fair enough about the  slaanesh book (al tough a year is a bit longer then it really wass). But in my experiance and I play both compatatif. There is a lot more pong then ping. 

[stratigo]

1 minute ago, Zappgrot said:

Fair enough about the  slaanesh book (al tough a year is a bit longer then it really wass). But in my experiance and I play both compatatif. There is a lot more pong then ping. 

Eh, not really. I think the primary issue is recency. Drukhari are RIGHT NOW and Iron hands was, uh, like a year and a half ago, but also only like 4 months because time is meaningless and 2020 didn't happen.

But I remember tzeentch days. And how tzeentch just wouldn't stop trashing everyone through nerf after nerf until their back finally broke.

[PrimeElectrid]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

They provably have in the past.

 

And they probably still do? Why wouldn't they? GW isn't stupid, you push a model, people buy it. They need to not make it too obvious. But, like, they don't have to hide it too hard either. 40k right now has this the most obvious with dramatic power boosts every codex, but each new cycle being better than before (drukhari and admech stronger than before). Albeit I think the rules writers of 40k are just writing with a more coherent vision then the writers of AoS. 

 

Well, no. The evidence suggests the opposite. For every new model with strong rules, there is a just as many (if not more) new models with bad rules. Kragnos. Sons of Behemat. Warsong Revenant. Slaanesh twins. All Slaanesh 2021 releases. Even Kroak is arguably nerfed. Some of the new Soulblight stuff is good, some of it is the Wight King. 
 

Clearly, in AoS, GW does not write strong rules to push new models. Otherwise all these models would have strong rules.

And the point of my post is that they never have. None of the new Lizardmen models in 8th had good rules. Of the Warriors new models, only chariots were made better - the monsters were garbage. Of the Dark Elves, most of the new models got better rules - but some didn’t. These exceptions wouldn’t happen if such a strategy existed.
 

I’m testing the limits of my memory now but the case is made: if GW write rules to push new models we would see a pattern. But there is no such consistency. Either the resulting inconsistency is that GW is very bad at writing strong rules to push new models (which is not credible as this takes more effort than writing the strong rules); or -gasp- they are actually trying to write semi balanced rules regardless of model status and making mistakes in both directions because this is quite hard to achieve. 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Greybeard86]

20 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Well, no. The evidence suggests the opposite. For every new model with strong rules, there is a just as many (if not more) new models with bad rules. [...] Either the resulting inconsistency is that GW is very bad at writing strong rules to push new models (which is not credible as this takes more effort than writing the strong rules); or -gasp- they are actually trying to write semi balanced rules regardless of model status and making mistakes in both directions because this is quite hard to achieve. 

 

I always see this argument and I am surprised it is still used. GW does not design all models to target all publics.

They design models and rules for powergamers, for collectors, for people who like big flashy monsters, for those who prefer efficient units, and for many different publics in general.

There is the MTG design explanation of the timmies and jacks and what not that explains this design approach well enough.

That said, they absolutely do use rules to push models, they simply don't do it for all the models all the time. They are pretty smart about it. They also use frequent point and rule changes to push selectively certain models.

This sophisticated behaviour, admitted by MTG designers, is a far more likely explanation for what we observe from GW than the "oh well mistakes were made!" and related versions that come up in these threads.

PS - They are big company, they do have people analyzing sales.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Greybeard86

[Noserenda]

I put a lengthy post about it up recently-ish, possibly in this thread, but they dont write rules to drive sales, because rules dont really drive sales, well, at least powerful or bad rules dont, (i suspect troops/battleline taxes do) the majority of sales just going to models folk like or other reasons, the super competitive "buy a new army after every FAQ" is a tiny tiny minority despite their loudness.

 

[PJetski]

4 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I put a lengthy post about it up recently-ish, possibly in this thread, but they dont write rules to drive sales, because rules dont really drive sales, well, at least powerful or bad rules dont, (i suspect troops/battleline taxes do) the majority of sales just going to models folk like or other reasons, the super competitive "buy a new army after every FAQ" is a tiny tiny minority despite their loudness.

 

That's just objectively false. Every Tzeentch army has at least one Lord of Change and every Seraphon army has Kroak, and that's not just because the models look cool.

It's not a 1:1 correlation but rules definitely have an impact on sales.

[Greybeard86]

29 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I put a lengthy post about it up recently-ish, possibly in this thread, but they dont write rules to drive sales, because rules dont really drive sales, well, at least powerful or bad rules dont, (i suspect troops/battleline taxes do) the majority of sales just going to models folk like or other reasons, the super competitive "buy a new army after every FAQ" is a tiny tiny minority despite their loudness.

 

I don't think that is true. As I said, I don't believe they write all rules or design or models to sell to WAAC competitive players. But they certainly design models and the supporting rules with sales in mind.

I'll link the classic reference:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03

I am pretty sure this applies to GW too. And that's why it is not a simple "du duh just make everything new OP".

Finally, collectors / painting oriented folk and rules are not insulated, since popularity drives instagram likes, comissions, and so on.

We are all aware that GW has business analytics people on sales data, right? Google search Gamesworkshop + business analytics for some of the profiles doing the job.

[RuneBrush]

55 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I put a lengthy post about it up recently-ish, possibly in this thread, but they dont write rules to drive sales, because rules dont really drive sales, well, at least powerful or bad rules dont, (i suspect troops/battleline taxes do) the majority of sales just going to models folk like or other reasons, the super competitive "buy a new army after every FAQ" is a tiny tiny minority despite their loudness.

I kind of agree with you but not for the reason you've suggested.  I don't think rules are written specifically with the intention to sell miniatures, however rules do influence the sales of miniatures.  The game designers don't have any involvement with the financial aspect of the business - they won't know how much a box of models is going to be going on sale for and some of the time likely don't even know how many you get in a box (see Dreadblade Harrows and Beasts of Nurgle as evidence for that).

What we know GW does is to make the latest models attractive enough rules wise to want to add to an army and that does align with GW's need to drive sales (they're a business after all).  However I don't believe there's some edict that comes down from on high, I think it's more wanting to give the latest cool model rules that match the coolness.

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

That's just objectively false. Every Tzeentch army has at least one Lord of Change and every Seraphon army has Kroak, and that's not just because the models look cool.

It's not a 1:1 correlation but rules definitely have an impact on sales.

Going to disagree with this one - I have two friends with Seraphon armies that don't have Kroak, one doesn't even have a Skink in it 😉  OK, I'll admit I'm being pedantic, the point I'm going to make is that it's really easy to forget about the hobbyists who play behind closed doors and we just don't know what they play or how many of them there are - I'm pretty sure they outnumber tournament goers by a pretty large factor.

[PJetski]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Ih Seraphon armies that don't have Kroak, one doesn't even have a Skink in it 😉  OK, I'll admit I'm being pedantic, the point I'm going to make is that it's really easy to forget about the hobbyists who play behind closed doors and we just don't know what they play or how many of them there are - I'm pretty sure they outnumber tournament goers by a pretty large factor.

I don't disagree - my point was just that rules have an impact on sales. We'll never know the extent, but that they are certainly a consideration.

If they had a tremendous impact on models sales then GW would probably be putting more effort into writing rules and QA... or maybe they just don't care?

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

It’s a correlation vs causation question.  Certainly rules influence sales. This does not have to mean that GW is intentionally writing rules to specifically drive sales.  To use a simple example I just do not believe that somebody in inventory management called up the rules writers when they were doing StD and said, “hey, we’ve got a lot of Marauders boxes down here.  Can you tune up their WS so we can clear them out?”  

Completely agree that GW has sales analysts.  But also know that the lags are simply huge here re: the level of fine tuning sometimes suggested in these threads.  

[PrimeElectrid]

3 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I always see this argument and I am surprised it is still used. GW does not design all models to target all publics.

They design models and rules for powergamers, for collectors, for people who like big flashy monsters, for those who prefer efficient units, and for many different publics in general.

There is the MTG design explanation of the timmies and jacks and what not that explains this design approach well enough.

That said, they absolutely do use rules to push models, they simply don't do it for all the models all the time. They are pretty smart about it. They also use frequent point and rule changes to push selectively certain models.

This sophisticated behaviour, admitted by MTG designers, is a far more likely explanation for what we observe from GW than the "oh well mistakes were made!" and related versions that come up in these threads.

PS - They are big company, they do have people analyzing sales.

I’m not sure I agree with this, because why would GW deliberately restrict themselves in this way? You present the marketing approaches as if they are exclusive, but it is perfectly possible for GW to create an army where:

* The rules are powerful

* The models appeal to collectors

* There are big flashy monsters 

In fact, it is better for GW to design armies this way so that they can sell as much as possible to as many different people as possible and therefore maximise sales. I don’t know MTG that well but I suspect that this is one of the cases where they aren’t comparable.

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

It has been literally decades since I played MtG but isn’t the biggest difference that MtG you have to buy the card packs with some uncertainty re:what you’re going to get in the primary market? (Understand there’s a secondary market but WotC doesn’t directly benefit from that to my understanding.). Even setting aside the huge price differential in a retail priced pack of MtG cards and say, Kragnos, that’s a very different business model.  But again, has been 20+ years since I checked in on MtG so maybe I’m missing something…

[Greybeard86]

They are fairly comparable, as those type of players exist in GW's games too.

If you read the reference, you'll see how they don't represent players as exclusively power gamers, or collectors (though those exist) but rather leaning in one direction or another (a continuum). You cannot cater to everyone with everything, and that's why they have armies and units that aren't good for WAAC players.

GW absolutely studies sales data with care, I am certain of that, and the way they release is, I'd bet, heavily informed by that.  When / whether to release a new army, the number of models in such army, the pace of updates, everything is a business decision. I am not saying that business analytics have infallible answers for all of the above, but it most certainly used in informing decisions.

I think there is a regular TGA poster who did some sales data analysis around here. I guess he can't disclose, but you'd be surprised.

Rules affect sales, this is a corporation selling models, people assuming they are incompetent at that should re-think what is going on.

[PrimeElectrid]

6 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

They are fairly comparable, as those type of players exist in GW's games too.

If you read the reference, you'll see how they don't represent players as exclusively power gamers, or collectors (though those exist) but rather leaning in one direction or another (a continuum). You cannot cater to everyone with everything, and that's why they have armies and units that aren't good for WAAC players.

GW absolutely studies sales data with care, I am certain of that, and the way they release is, I'd bet, heavily informed by that.  When / whether to release a new army, the number of models in such army, the pace of updates, everything is a business decision. I am not saying that business analytics have infallible answers for all of the above, but it most certainly used in informing decisions.

I think there is a regular TGA poster who did some sales data analysis around here. I guess he can't disclose, but you'd be surprised.

Rules affect sales, this is a corporation selling models, people assuming they are incompetent at that should re-think what is going on.

The logical conclusion of your position is that GW could design a unit that they deliberately discourage a type customer from buying (by giving it bad rules) in order to only appeal to another type of customer, thereby costing them a sale, when they could easily achieve both. Rules being largely digital, this could be done in moments. 
 

That is not a sensible business strategy. 

[Greybeard86]

3 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

The logical conclusion of your position is that GW could design a unit that they deliberately discourage a type customer from buying (by giving it bad rules) in order to only appeal to another type of customer, thereby costing them a sale, when they could easily achieve both. Rules being largely digital, this could be done in moments. 
 

That is not a sensible business strategy. 

No. I suggest you read the link I provided. Having BAD units is a necessary part of the process.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

I’ve read the article (a few times, because it is interesting) but again Timmy is explicitly described as blind buying.  He gets a pack that he doesn’t know what is in and is excited to find a rare power card.  Left unsaid is what happens when he doesn’t find that rare card.  False scarcity is an explicit part of MtG’s business model.  They could print as many power cards as they want and make sure almost every pack has one but they don’t so people will buy more packs in hope of finding one.

While there are certain limited sets there is zero false scarcity or uncertainty involved in a GW single unit purchase.  Want Kragnos/Archaon/Nagash/Texkis/Kroak/etc. you don’t have to but a bunch of boxes and hope.  You just buy them.

Again, I fully believe GW analyzes sales figures and absolutely it influences the big stuff like which armies get new models etc.  I am just skeptical that it is a major influence on individual WS.  I think that in the end is where we differ.

GW invested a lot of money designing, marketing and producing Kragnos.  I doubt they intentionally sacrificed him to sell more Kroak.

[NinthMusketeer]

The evidence doesn't provide any support to the idea that GW intentionally makes individual units OP/UP for sales purposes. I recall a thread from last here were I was reduced to begging the proponents of that theory to provide valid evidence and none was ever brought up.

What IS plausible is that the powers-that-be at GW feel that the current balance incompetence is kind of like rolling a bunch of dice with every new book. Inevitably some units will get worse, others will get better, some will stay the same. That way they get sales from fluctuating unit performance but the actual efforts of the devs to balance things provide enough stability for player retention, all at a fraction of the effort. How self-aware GW is about this I have no idea, nor how much the devs are happy about it if they are.

[Grimrock]

As far as the rules driving sales, we might not be able to see all hobbyists everywhere but thanks to GW's recent stock issues we can at least get a glimpse of what's selling well. I've been tracking a few new armies from 40k on GW's webstore and I'm definitely seeing a correlation between what's considered good/OP and what's regularly sold out. For example with Death Guard, they got a  fantastic looking new terrain piece in their new book but it has generally been considered as sub par rules-wise (as is most terrain in 40k for some reason). Unsurprisingly I can't remember ever seeing it out of stock. Conversely, the Blightlord Terminators and Deathshroud Terminators were existing kits, but they got massive improvements in their rules. They've basically been sold out on the web store since the previews dropped the week before the codex release. The correlation was also pretty obvious in Necrons for quite a while after their release, but they're losing popularity now and most of their models are back in stock. Unfortunately it isn't always as clear in AoS factions, possibly because they're getting better stock from GW or possibly because there's more demand for 40k. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

6 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

As far as the rules driving sales, we might not be able to see all hobbyists everywhere but thanks to GW's recent stock issues we can at least get a glimpse of what's selling well. I've been tracking a few new armies from 40k on GW's webstore and I'm definitely seeing a correlation between what's considered good/OP and what's regularly sold out. For example with Death Guard, they got a  fantastic looking new terrain piece in their new book but it has generally been considered as sub par rules-wise (as is most terrain in 40k for some reason). Unsurprisingly I can't remember ever seeing it out of stock. Conversely, the Blightlord Terminators and Deathshroud Terminators were existing kits, but they got massive improvements in their rules. They've basically been sold out on the web store since the previews dropped the week before the codex release. The correlation was also pretty obvious in Necrons for quite a while after their release, but they're losing popularity now and most of their models are back in stock. Unfortunately it isn't always as clear in AoS factions, possibly because they're getting better stock from GW or possibly because there's more demand for 40k. 

Yeah, I 100% agree there’s a correlation between the value of a WS (which includes points) and sales.  The out of stocks an argument against intent as if you were intentionally trying to drive say, Deathshroud Terminators you would’ve built up more inventory before the tome to avoid the out of stock.

[Chikout]

7 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

As far as the rules driving sales, we might not be able to see all hobbyists everywhere but thanks to GW's recent stock issues we can at least get a glimpse of what's selling well. I've been tracking a few new armies from 40k on GW's webstore and I'm definitely seeing a correlation between what's considered good/OP and what's regularly sold out. For example with Death Guard, they got a  fantastic looking new terrain piece in their new book but it has generally been considered as sub par rules-wise (as is most terrain in 40k for some reason). Unsurprisingly I can't remember ever seeing it out of stock. Conversely, the Blightlord Terminators and Deathshroud Terminators were existing kits, but they got massive improvements in their rules. They've basically been sold out on the web store since the previews dropped the week before the codex release. The correlation was also pretty obvious in Necrons for quite a while after their release, but they're losing popularity now and most of their models are back in stock. Unfortunately it isn't always as clear in AoS factions, possibly because they're getting better stock from GW or possibly because there's more demand for 40k. 

Unfortunately none of that means anything because we don't know how many kits GW produces. If you look at the Soulblight range, the wight king, arguably the worst warscroll in the book is out of stock, but the deadwalker zombies arguably the best warscroll in the book which competitive players are buying in bulk, are still on stock. 

 

Scenery rarely sells well and the desthshroud terminators are very nice models. In a year when hardly anyone was able to play competitively gw had by far their best results ever. All the supposedly broken Lumineth minis never sold out. 

[NinthMusketeer]

As for quality of tome design, I can very much understand where people get the impression. It FEELS like we are on a string of badly designed times, but here me out here; it's not actually that bad and may even be on a positive course.

We can start at the most recent and go backwards;

-Soulblight Gravelords. I do this think tome is poor in design. It has plenty of elements I like (love the effort made towards standardizing weapon profiles where appropriate) and some that I just can't comprehend how anyone thought it was a good idea (LOOKING AT YOU ZOMBIES) but most if it is just kinda... meh. Rules that are themselves not badly designed (anyone else note the big improvement to invocation in that it no longer stacks?) but really need to be supporting a bigger more interesting mechanic instead of having a bunch rolled together. And that is key here--a lot of the pieces in SGL are good but it is less than the sum of its parts.

-Lumineth. There is a huge amount of fantastic and well-written rules in this tome that perfectly epitomize the skill and finesse of the army (with the learning curve to match) while also not just loading up individual parts of the army with tons of stuff. Yes, Lumineth can break a lot of rules and do a lot of stuff but nothing in the army can do it all at once. Each piece has it's own shtick and the army is far too elite for a given list to do everything Lumineth potentially can. I could ramble on for pages about how much I love the nuance and clear effort that was put into writing this battletome, which makes me that much more angry they ruined all it with sunmetal weapons. Seriously. Why bother with all that fancy stuff when you can just spam MWs from 30" away no LoS? A dam shame, but it is still one bad mechanic making a large majority of very good ones.

-Slaanesh. Normally I fault GW for doing new tomes so close after the first, but in this case it was needed. I actually believe the tome release was moved up by a few months because the old one simply needed to be addressed. And address it they did, refining the main mechanics in a positive way. But I think they were over cautious because of how OP the first one was and that resulted in many of the new units just having too high of point costs. But the warscrolls aren't designed badly; they just need their points lowered. There are also some notably excessive exploits and clearly unbalanced elements (LOOKING AT YOU HEALY HAND) that didn't get fixed. But while bad, that isn't worse than what we normally get. Actually, that is exactly what we normally get.

-DoK. I think many are forgetting this is a recent tome release because there is no controversy. It made several positive changes, whiffed a bit at fixing several flaws, but overall simply made the extremely wise choice not to fix what isn't broken. And I want to give GW some serious praise for that, it has and continues to be a big flaw of theirs in rule design and I was quite pleased to see DoK buck that trend so well. Overall DoK is a step up from what was already a solid tome (post-point nerfs) and not causing much of a splash is a part of that. The most significant issue is mostly just down to one warscroll.

 

At the end of the day I can certainly see effort from the tome writers to up their game. Even if the results have not always panned out it is still a good sign, and we should remember that the things we notice most easily will by their very nature tend to be the worst designed. A mental trap I know I have fallen into far too many times (if you are reading this Bottle, thank you for inspiring me to do better).

[Grimrock]

18 minutes ago, Chikout said:

Unfortunately none of that means anything because we don't know how many kits GW produces. If you look at the Soulblight range, the wight king, arguably the worst warscroll in the book is out of stock, but the deadwalker zombies arguably the best warscroll in the book which competitive players are buying in bulk, are still on stock. 

 

Scenery rarely sells well and the desthshroud terminators are very nice models. In a year when hardly anyone was able to play competitively gw had by far their best results ever. All the supposedly broken Lumineth minis never sold out. 

Of course it doesn't guarantee anything, it's merely an indication of correlation. With the terminators being sold out for 6 months straight it begins to suggest that the quality of the rules has an effect on sales. The same can be said for a model like the catacomb command barge in Necrons which has only come back in stock now after about 8 months since the book was released. A number of kits do tend to fluctuate in availability, but the really strong models in 40k seem to be consistently sold out for very long periods.

As for the Lumineth or Soulblight, like I said the correlation is less obvious on the AoS side. I don't know if that's because there's more stock available for AoS, less demand, or maybe people are just taking a break from buying until 3rd edition is released and we actually know what works and what doesn't. I know I've been on total hiatus with AoS since we saw the rumors of battalions being removed. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Grimrock

[Greybeard86]

10 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Of course it doesn't guarantee anything, it's merely an indication of correlation. With the terminators being sold out for 6 months straight it begins to suggest that the quality of the rules has an effect on sales.

So over the course of decades GW has been pushing models and rules, does anyone believe they don't have a good sense of the relationship? And that in understanding it, it won't be part of their business strategy?

I mean, I don't know if I am saying something too obvious.

Yet every single time I see someone saying X and Y was bad on release, this must mean GW are incompetent and don't use rules for sales.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

10 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Yet every single time I see someone saying X and Y was bad on release, this must mean GW are incompetent and don't use rules for sales.

GW can be competent or incompetent when writing rules without it having anything to do with whether they use specific war scroll rules for sales.  

As @NinthMusketeer has already pointed out GW is actually pretty darn competent.  AoS and 40k are massively multivariate though even the most competent writers will have hits and misses.  Even the most competent writers on a deadline will have hits and misses.  Combine massively multivariate with deadlines and you’ll certainly have hits and misses.

To me at least, that is a simpler explanation than GW intentionally sacrificing some units (paying a high price in inventory costs as a result) to artificially boost others.