Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Celestant-Prime

About Vakarian

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Great points both about the background circumstances that amplified interest in Indomitus. That level of interest is unlikely to repeat in an AoS set anytime soon but I’d bet that AoS sees increased sales too given how the game, and GW, are going. I snagged Indomitus as an easy and incredibly cost efficient entry point to 40k because I’ve wanted to do both Marines and Necrons for some time, so in that sense I was the perfect customer. But honestly, for the price of the box with a full rulebook included, I would have bought it even if I was only interested in one faction, and not have been too concerned if I had a hard time splitting off the other. If GW keeps building 2-player sets like this they’ll snag a *lot* of customers who see a serious value for even half of the box’s contents at the comparative prices to individual kits. The models are so good that the old concern about monopose seems to be a lot less important (it certainly is for me; I’m happy enough with the monopose models they’ve made in both AoS and 40k recently, but I’ve also been in the hobby long enough I’m very comfortable either kitbashing or converting monopose models too).
  2. I’d love to see it too, I’m very interested in GW’s business model, and I’d also like to see what unspoken numbers of people buy their models and play their games but aren’t in the online communities. It seems like it must be a pretty large number. The posts I followed on B&C had Dark Imperium estimated at 250,000 copies sold in three years. That makes a lot more sense to me than Spikey Bits’ numbers (and like you said, grain of salt there!). There are now well upwards of 320 million people in the US. The EU as a whole sits at similar numbers. If only 1 million people in each play 40k or purchase the models at all (that’s actually a pretty small player base, all things considered) then 250,000 copies of the main starter set make a lot more sense than 27,000, which would reflect a player base (worldwide!) of less than a million people, and that’s assuming that only single-digit percentage points of your player base buy the basic starter set. The 27,000 number just doesn’t track for a company posting the profits GW is making. To keep this somewhat AoS related: of course, the AoS player base is much smaller, so 40k numbers will look a good bit larger. But I think the 250,000 number makes a lot more sense and gives some insight into how large the hobby has actually grown.
  3. Chatter on Bolter and Chainsword had the 35,000 number being the amount reserved for US FLGS’s. It seems like the total produced is probably an order of magnitude higher once you consider GW online sales and sales in the UK, EU, Oz, and the rest of the world. That would make a lot more sense, by the numbers @Rodiger posted in the OP. Our hobby isn’t huge, but 40k is a larger product than something that would average only 50 sales/month of a flagship box across 20 target market countries. One state in the US like NY, CA, or FL would post higher numbers than that alone. That said, unless GW suddenly pulls back the curtain, we probably won’t know the production numbers for certain.
  4. It looks like they put the wrong pictures on two cards: the Evocator with Grandstave leader is pictured with a sword and staff instead, and the basic line Sequitor with mace has a picture of the Sequitor Prime from Soul Wars instead of a basic Sequitor. If the pictures are wrong, then the stats make sense otherwise compared to the rest of the cards.
  5. So Sacrosanct seem to be the best-balanced SCE warband. You’re getting 5 guys—but only 5. Their attack profiles aren’t as crazy as the Warrior Chamber models (heck, the basic Sequitors aren’t even as good in melee as the Vanguard Hunters are, and the Sequitors are more expensive, and lack shooting, all in exchange for T6). Without faster, cheaper activations like Aetherwings and Gryphounds, Sacrosanct feel like they won’t be as OP as Vanguard, but they still retain the truly elite feel that Stormcast should have. Long story short, I think this is the best job GW has done yet of balancing an SCE warband. The abilities will matter too but I can already say I’m going to love playing them, and I think my regular opponents won’t be nearly as frustrated by these guys as they are by Vanguard (except maybe in leader assassination missions, but hey, SCE or any truly tough, elite warband will always be tough to beat there).
  6. It’s been slow going, but another Aetherwing is finished for the Stormtorn. I’ve played enough games now to be convinced that the Aetherwings are the glue that makes SCE Vanguard work as a scary good warband. Activations, flying movement, the ability to easily take objectives or tie up key enemy pieces, and the reroll double make the birds essential to really playing strong SCE lists. Anyway, enjoy the latest birb! Painting inspired by the North American red-tailed hawk.
  7. We’ll see Sequitors for sure (they’re on the package cover), and almost certainly Castigators and Evocators too. Maybe Gryphounds, because the ETB Castigator box comes with one? I doubt there will be any cavalry models for SCE. Sacrosanct does feel a little light after Warrior Chamber, but the options so far should be: Sequitor Mace Sequitor Sword Sequitor Great Mace Leader option for each Castigator Leader option Evocator Sword and Staff Evocator Grandstave Leader option for each That’s still 11 unit options (including leader options), which is pretty decent variety even with nothing else. I expect they’ll be a slightly better, slightly more expensive version of the Warrior Chamber profiles with some different abilities. Here’s to hoping we can manage even a 5-man list with them!
  8. The Warrior Chamber profiles have amazing stat lines and some of the abilities seem really nice. They should be a lot of fun to play. Their only downside will be that you’ll be running lists with 4-5 models, max, so expect to be out-activated pretty much every time. Your guys are tough enough that shouldn’t be a huge problem, but some objective-based missions may be difficult, especially if you don’t take any Prosecutors (the flying guys).
  9. Thank you! I do suffer from new model syndrome, but only when the new models aren’t painted lol. So I should really paint more often...
  10. Yes! The gold armor, the skin, and the leather are all washed with Agrax Earthshade. The blue areas and the silver on the weapons are washed with Drakenhof Nightshade.
  11. Another addition to the warband... and he promptly rewarded his paint job by triple-critting an FEC leader to win me tonight’s game! Meet Zadion Brightheart, the oldest and saltiest of the Stormtorn, but also a dead shot with a Hurricane Crossbow.
  12. Maybe forumites are generally predisposed to prefer the older GW approach, and tend to be more dedicated to the game as it’s grown up over the past years (decades, for some us)? @Overread I truly hope that GW got and understood that message. But @Dead Scribe has a point that a lot of the vocal online community, at least, don’t seem to be so hot on the idea. I thought it would be better received on this forum, at least (and at least the disagreement here has been incredibly polite). I would never dare posing the suggestion on Dakka.
  13. I disagree with this, fundamentally. I've offered CB/Infinity's success, as a fun game, as a counter to this. I really doubt that balancing underperforming units to be more effective would make the game less fun for anyone. Please note what I'm not saying: I'm not actually asking for new things to be toned down, necessarily (I'll consistently hold to the idea that the sky isn't usually falling with each new release). What I believe would make the game more fun for every type of player is if the generally less-desirable units were regularly tweaked with interesting updates. Further, Infinity has seen an explosion in its playerbase over the last several years as CB has committed to using this sort of data to improve their game. I suspect the latter, but there are enough comments here supporting the former that I'm genuinely unsure what the GW playerbase as a whole desires. If the community doesn't want balance, GW will definitely never have an incentive to provide it.
  14. Yea, that's fair, I was as well. You bring up a good point. I'm not sure there's any guaranteed way to observe those sorts of effects without taking statistical samples and having a control group to compare the results to. That's not really going to be possible to do with tabletop games, unless you've got a very robust playtesting system, and I doubt any company (even GW) can really manage that level of playtesting. The best answer is that they really shouldn't change too many things about the core game at once (preferably only one). Then the results are at least in some way attributable to the general rule change. If changes are made to factions at the same time, then it probably isn't ever going to be able to be separated out. That said, the process doesn't need to be that scientific. Tracking data to see which factions aren't quite measuring up should be sufficient to indicate to GW what isn't worth taking. How they approach fixing that is up to them. Then, track the next 6 months' results. If the problem has gone away, something worked, and nothing else got broken. If the problem's still there, or things got worse... well, better wind the clock back or consider other changes. This doesn't need to be handled like rocket science; the most useful thing the data can provide is an indicator that something needs an update. I don't think, and would never advocate, that these sorts of data sets could point to the best, or even a specific, solution.
  15. I think we’re actually in almost total agreement and to some extent talking past each other (or at least I was talking past you, so let me apologize for that). My statements in my previous post need to be read in the context of my whole argument in this thread; they may not quite make sense in a vacuum. My larger point is that “good” is available in tournament data, as shown by CB’s use of similar data to provide a game that is better balanced for both tournament and casual players. Better balance for one generally translates to better balance for the other. In large part, this isn’t focused on what’s considered the new, OP hotness—yes, good tournament players can usually identify that without needing a large pool of results. What data is actually useful for us finding underperforming units and determining that they need some sort of tweak. This has to be an iterative process—it isn’t necessarily going to be right the first time. There certainly isn’t enough information to allow for that. I don’t think sales data can provide any useful information for a game when sales are heavily influenced by pure hobbyists. That leaves tournament data as the only realistic, outside data available to GW.
  • Create New...