pnkdth
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by pnkdth
-
-
48 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Also GW doesnt seem to have rhyme and reason with Tomes, case in point DOK.
They seem to operate on some kind of metric where popularity/sales dictate attention which would explain why some factions are cycled back in before other factions even getting their first 3rd ed tome. Marines don't get so much attention just because GW likes marines, it because they sell like crazy. Now (as per the annual report) Horus Heresy is classified as a core game alongside 40k and AoS we should expect even more marine releases (plus there's whispers of 40k space marines not being far off either).
Also per the report, GW are doubling down on the FOMO and Versus boxes and focusing their effort on existing players + additional focus on more frequent releases and rules (seasons and other expansions) means this game is going to get more complex and expensive to get into. The wording in the report seem to indicate that they do not have any faith in making the hobby mainstream, e.g. niche marketing.
For AoS this probably means we should expect nothing more than hero in a versus box + tome updates (with a few exceptions like S2D and DBC). I hope I am wrong and sometimes these reports are purposefully jumbled not to reveal too much. So this round of hopium is on me!
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:
I really like the Juggernaut design. It is something different and screams Khorne. They should have done a bit more of those designs imho. The Skullcanon was a bit to futuristic for my taste. The classic Khorne design is a timeless one though.
Yeah, the juggernaughts are just *chef's kiss* awesome. It just looks like they could go through anything. For 40k I would I have liked a smaller tank-sized version of the Lord of Skulls. In both systems build on that bulky 'mass monster' look. Who knows, there might be more to come.
-
Khorne works because it is like a classic car. Doesn't need to be anything more or less. Instantly recognisable with a battlecry that's been on everyone's lips one time or another.
New for the sake of being new gets us even sillier hats than the chorfs (LRL) while Khorne's aesthetics is forever. Much like how GW doesn't have to tinker with vampire counts/SBGL. It just works because everyone deep down inside like to indulge their rage and revel in glorious close combat!
-
7
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
You are right.
****** this game, ****** GW, ****** gods.
Most of you guys are okay, but it isn't the game, setting (though the basis of the Mortal Realms is awesome) or company I need to put any energy in.
I'll be off then.
In the end, when it comes to hobbying go for the game and setting that bring you joy. I've ventured beyond GW and enjoyed myself massively. OPR are making big strides too. I wish you the very best regardless of the path you choose. Best of luck!
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Ogregut said:
Crusade isn't exclusively linked to religion it is also defined as a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change.
Like Batman is called the caped crusader with his war on crime.
I actually think crusade is the perfect word as it is about political, social and religious change in Sigmars name.
And even if it happens to be linked to such thing it fits within its setting, i.e. grimdark fantasy. Each time they push out into chaos territory to establish another city it is a roll of the dice. In such a world(s) a certain level of fanaticism/zealotry is to be expected. While not as hopeless as 40k it is still has some pretty dark themes. Plus, Sigmar has an actual presence, the DBC won't be guided by a mad half-alive husk on a throne.
Not that I think it is a particularly bad thing to have a fictional crusade in a fictional universe. Especially not when it works within its setting.
-
5
-
-
They're a half-done mechanic. They've should have learned from 40k, specifically how you score and pick them, and allowed armies to use secondary objectives which suits different kinds of lists/factions. You'd see more list variety and armies which end up the mid/lower end of the meta can at least try their hand at playing the objective. AoS would also benefit a lot with a bigger general pool and scraping army specific ones entirely and/or rotate objectives with seasons to ensure the meta stays fresh.
Grand Strats would benefit from being a secret objective you reveal at the end of the battle, place a card face down visible to both players. Seems weird to broadcast your army's intent to the enemy. You would chose it before deployment instead of when list building. The aim here is to make it more of a mystery and have players trying to figure out what the opponent is trying to achieve during the course of the game. Plus, a bit of subterfuge and mind games is fun.
As you might pick out, this borrows from Malifaux since I think it is nice way of handling objective based play. It would work really well when combined with AoS/40k mechanics.
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, MitGas said:
Regarding Thondia or new releases like heroes locked behind buying old stuff: GW is seriously starting to ****** me (and not just me) off with this tactic. I'm saying this in the nicest possible way here but I don't think it's wise to let them get away with this and excuse them by saying "oh, they're trying new things". I would've LOVED to buy some of the Thondia scenery like the waterfall thingy or the dragon bones. I won't buy a box full of other stuff I don't care about for it though and ultimately - even if it gets released on its own later - I feel extremely annoyed by it. It also makes me reconsider what to buy now as things might get bundled up later and I don't want multiples or have to worry about reselling parts.
Their prices are arguably high enough not to add "hidden taxes". And them investing into the AoS range (when we talk about updating old kits) is something that will pay off in the long run, it's how business works - when we launch a new product, we gotta pay for lots of things upfront but in time it starts to turn a profit. But very few will buy Skaven models that are are older than many players, so if they want to see Skaven (or other races, I believe Skaven sell quite well considering their range) be on SM tier, then maybe allocate some resources.
I'm usually one that doesn't nag about GW's business decisions and will look past many things as I can thankfully afford it easily but now they're starting to irritate me, COVID or not. I want my ****** Curseling right now (why tease him since forever (the rumour engine was one of the longest running ones) and no sign of its release yet?) and Lumineth are the last thing i want to buy bundled with him (and most Lumineth fans probably don't give a damn about Tzeentch either). Get your ****** together, GW - you're giving us a single new mini (well, two) and put that single release behind a paywall. Your normal heroes cost as much as a video game on sale, with stuff like the Lord of Change costing as much as two video games. At least have the courtesy to not lock new releases behind huge boxes of stuff people don't want. We're in loot box territory right now and this will backfire sooner or later.
Rant over but I feel like it needed to be said - I'll happily pay GW prices, despite being ludicrous at this point, but they shouldn't muck about with their customers.
Yes, even though I dig GW minis I've been turned away multiple times because of not being able to buy what I want. The boxes themselves might be "good value" but buying more models, half of which I do not want, still ends up with me having to spend even more... Which I just won't do. I do not want to go through the hassle of splitting the box either. I just want to enjoy cool minis on my own terms.
It has helped me to get my backlog done for non-GW games though (but that's probably not the intended effect GW had in mind).
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, zilberfrid said:
In the long forgotten past, space marines were the fist of a fascist empire, and clearly also bad guys. Then GW needed a good guy, and that portrayal of "bad" was lessened. Still a fascist empire, but now to be considered heroic.
That's just plain fascist propaganda.
I don't care that you like a certain thing. There are probably a lot, even the majority of players of space marines and kriegthat aren't fascists. I care that that thing is made to appeal to fascists.
They're plastic soldiers from a massively over the top grimdark (even grimderp) setting. Seriously, it is pretty messed up to not only claim GW is "plainly" pushing fascist propaganda but also lowkey claim SM/krieg has a fairly significant player base who idealise and praise the virtues of fascism. Really bad take cause everyone in 40k is in on the joke, so to speak. Krieg, for instance, is just so incredibly grimderp it ends up being awesome. Not in terms of "oh, this is a grand idea" but more in the lines of "haha, shovel go bonk!"
Just because I "like a certain thing" does not mean I endorse the actions of people within its fictional universe. Or maybe I'm a really terrible person for enjoying chaos propaganda? I mean, if composing symphonies from the cries of pain and pleasure of my captives is wrong I don't want to be right!
3 hours ago, Beliman said:I know that this opinion will not be well recieved, but I think that Space Marines are awesome. (I play dark eldar btw).
I mean, they're so awesome they killed WHFB to reinstate them as SCE, after all. Given how widely represented SCE are in the hobby I'd say the move worked out just as intended. I'm a Dark Eldar player first but dabble in CSM/daemons. Maybe I'm just a depraved person, after all. 😅
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:
Just using random points costs and activations for this example.
Units with points costs:
0-100 = 1 activation
100-250 = 2 activations
250- 400 = 3 activations
400 or more = 4 activationsThis would make a cheap chaff unit less impactfull as bigger/ more elite units etc.
It makes sense for some units having more actions per activations to justify points cost. Especially since AoS has some really expensive pieces.
I think Malifaux solves it really well with 'pass token' which allow the elite army to pass on an activation to activate later. For each unit more the opponent has the other player gains a pass token. This allows the more elite armies to anticipate and react rather than being surrounded and outmanoeuvred since the opponent now has to show their hand, so to speak.
Multiple activations for elite armies means they get as many activations yet of much higher quality (and some seriously punishing alpha strikes). Because while chaff means more activations they're also a lower quality activation. That said, I think certain unit types deserve more actions per activation because as you rightly point out there's a rather extreme range between the cost of units.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Beliman said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but @NinthMusketeer list is not an exploit, but a feature. The main problem is when the game is not build with all of this in mind:
Imho, that's a good (and fair) strategy. Elite units need to do a lot of work to confront early "chaff" activations. Going first with high quality units is another strategy, focusing big units that are not even activated and removing them before they are activated (AA "Alpha").
Problem: Of course, if the game was not build with that in mind, it will be teddious and one sided unless both armies are going to take meh units just to stop this tactics.
Solution: Activation tokens, Chain-activations, more actions per phase for elite units, etc...That's is exactly a IGYG problem. 40% of your points in one model that can be killed without being played, or worst, it can end the game on turn 2. I don't like this kind of designs, and I don't think they healthy for any game.
Problem: It's a big problem, you destroy an entire army, or you lose 40% of your points in one go. Doens't matter if you play IGYG or AA, it will never bea good experience.
Solution: This isn't an easy fix. High points, giving them more activations or tokens to make them relevant, no spread-damage, etc... are a good start. E.g: Conquest big dudes are not going to die until turn 3 (even if you play as bad as you can), and will never kill half an army in the first turn (because they are not going to be in the table).That's worst in IGYG with double-turn. I would say that AA have an edge because you can activate another ranged unit to return fire, or activate faster dudes to zone the enemy and have more space to do wahtever you want (shooting usually is an action, so in games like Conquest, you can't TP+shoot as easy as IGYG)
Problem and Solution: It's more about the game than the system. Having one unit shoot one of your units is not the same as having 4 units and an artillery deleting 5 of your units. But still, it can happen and it's all about the developers of the game.And for abilities such as Morathi's double shoot (double fight or other big abilities) you could just count them as combat actions if it becomes an issue of big alpha strikes. That's one of the advantages of AA, you can create units with flexibility and flavour without it meaning they can do everything in a single activation.
-
1
-
-
I hope they expand on existing armies as much as possible. The sheer amount of tomes waiting in line always seems to be a point of frustration. GW are already struggling to properly support all their factions.
DBC is effectively a CoS replacement, perhaps not immediately but I imagine they'll take the centre stage for the human/mortal Sigmarite factions. CoS is, after all, made up of ageing moulds and outdated rules. Had there been long-term plans for them then there wouldn't be a need for DBC. There might be some long-long term plans for them but it just seems weird to helicopter lift the human part out of CoS into a new faction and ALSO release CoS. That said, DBC could work like SCE as coalition forces for CoS.
Anyways, Orruks deserve to be a SCE/SBGL/S2D battletome. Give 'em a big green sandbox and unleash a big whoopin' WAAAGH! Then for good measure have the gitz contain all the tricksy elements and build a solid foundation from that with the suggestions from @Gothmaug. Also, who wouldn't want a pirate gobbo army? 🥰
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Lupercal said:
Any reason Pretenders don’t seem to get much love over the others?
Battle traits are not particularly impactful (you will very rarely see huge units to benefit from the re-roll). The extra DP generation trait is risky. The double up on command traits is interesting (and they have solid artefacts) but it is not enough to get me away from using Godseekers, Invaders, or Lurid Haze.
If our Keepers were a bit tougher I think the character-centric Pretenders would be more interesting since then you'd feel more at home with getting stuck in and make use of the Pretender's double trait + artefacts (and access the increased DP generation bonus).
I've also become used to the more reliable charges of Godseekers or the useful movement shenanigans of Lurid Haze, Hurler of Obscenities command trait is also really nice (edit: in Invaders. Forgot to specify!).
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I agree.
To be honest, the more I think about leaks, the less I like them. The benefit of them is that you get to know something's coming out earlier, and the downside is that the release is usually not built up at all and shown in a way that's just a blurry picture.
I imagine there was a video to go alongside Angron and he'd be shown at an event with the audience getting very excited until the big moment, and there'd be a wave of hype on reveal.
Instead we have a photo reveal which looks great, but it's a flash in the pan sort of excitement - a "oh that's cool", with no build up. It also likely means that we'll be waiting a while until release and by then most of the excitement will have gone away.
The benefit of just knowing something is coming earlier, to me, just doesn't seem worth the 'extended' wait time and loss of excitement.
A huge advantage though is the consumers are likely to make more measured and informed decisions rather than get trapped in a hype-cycle and overspend.
We like to joke about the pile of shame but reality such a pile represent a series of impulse buys done in the heat of the moment. For serial-buyers this can being a serious issue and there's plenty of research on how this creates 'whales' and get people to buy stuff using their emotions rather than brain. Most of the research is on video games but GW does use a lot of FOMO-tactics (the dual boxes and thondia comes to mind) in addition to shifting balance around to incentivise people to buy "the next cool thing." Not entirely unique to GW but they're quite relentless with it.
Road maps + leaks is good for us as players because they lessen the impact of the hype-train. Allows us to prioritise projects we actually want to do rather getting drawn into psychological traps and sales tactics. After all, the hype is so short lived anyways and often lead to massive overreaction (both optimistic and pessimistic).
-
20
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Nagash's next big move will be making people believe in weird imaginary riches through Flesh Eater Courts delusions. They will be known as Crypt Currencies and going to the moon will somehow be involved.
Also, NFT stands for Neferata.
I got this new thing called Feast Coin. It is going to be huge! Completely revolutionise smart contracts and crypt chains.
-
GW going all in on Dogecoin, obviously. #Cryptobros4ever #wow #elon4prez
-
1 hour ago, AronQ_ said:
Thanks for your opinions friends! And I have one more question, how is working Soporific Musk rule of fiends? If fiends have 4+ model in unit, enemy must substract 1 to wound or if there enemy that include 4+ model, they must substract 1 to wound?
1-3 fiends = -1 to hit.
4 or more fiends = -1 to hit and to wound.
Enemy models doesn't matter since it says this unit. Then say when enemy units target this unit. Wording can be a bit jumbled and you gotta read a rule a few times. Especially since they like to write similar rules in 3+ different ways just to keep us on edge. 😆
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:
Apparently GW's gotten rid of all it's external 40k playtesters (according to Honest Wargamer).
Not a big surprise considering how many leaks the ship was springing, seems like it was inevitable. Be interesting to see what happens on the AoS/30k/Specialist side of things.
There were even hushed whispers of hope that maybe, just maybe, they're considering a proper internal testing team. But do not speak this is aloud, anything more than a whisper will destroy the idea of a balanced 40k. It is so fragile!
-
2
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Fert said:
Totally agree with you and in a sense some of what I am saying... This game has the potential for bad matches (a symptom of many factions, rules, builds, bloat) but good players even casual ones know that there are tools and plays that exist. (i.e. They have the wits to work around tough matchups/NPE)
I like the place Aos is in. As often as a double turns can seal a game into a loss they just as often save the game for a win. We see a hand full of top factions and unfun builds, but not is completely blowing the scene out of the water like that of 40k (which has, imho, much more NPE).
I feel GW is tackling some controversial rules fairly, just not fast enough, and then when they do it a little heavy handed. Living cities with SCE, Shoot cast, Sentinel Spam all took way to long, and then completely gutted them. Give us smaller tweaks at shorter intervals. GW can do better... i.e. KO disembark should not have taking a year to release an FAQ to address such a fundamental part of an army.
The issue here is that we're doing in spite of the rules not because we want to. Tackling NPE helps everyone because I do not think the competitive scene would crumble if the Purple Sun lost its 1/6 of instantly killing a model, Sentinels suddenly requires a LoS to their target, Foxes being unable to move in the opponents turn, etc, etc. In most cases, the fix seem comparatively simple.
There's already plenty to engage with in terms of positioning and screening for a double, managing the high lethality of the game, save stacking + MW arms race, that we do not need extra moments of "oh, I lost the game on a single dice roll." I can already hear someone out there in the distance, "it is a dice game, bro", and yeah, it is, but that doesn't mean everything has to be so randomly random you feel like your own decisions doesn't matter. That's NPE in a nutshell, really, moments in a game that feel like BS, unfair, or completely unearned.
As a disclaimer, I also enjoy making stuff work in spite of this and doing the whole "anti-meta" thing. I just think some mechanics and rules doesn't belong in a two player game. Especially not since games can go for 2+ hours (more if setup is required). Much can be solved with setting proper expectations and understanding between players though, it is just some mechanics doesn't seem to consider it takes two to tango.
-
6
-
-
5 minutes ago, Fert said:
A lot of this game is rock paper scissors. At the competitive level the top tables players build lists that have the tools and make the right choices to deal with tough matchups. Leverage low rend into hordes. Leverage mortals into tough heroes. Do the math on chance of success before you move into position only to whiff. Have options baked into your list assist to deal with save stackers.. even if this means avoiding them. Use control, use screens, use terrain, and/or movement. You don't have to kill/smash/maim everything.
Overall I feel that at competitive events people need to understand what they are signing up for. You will play NPE games. That's how it is.
For casual play, you need have the correct play group to avoid NPE. Play path to glory. Drink, laugh, have fun. Read your friends reaction to the game. If they have a bad time and quit... then your done playing as well.
NPE is not about being able to win or not. Casual/friendly play doesn't mean you're just flinging models at each other. Most players exist in between competitive and narrative, in a space you could call competitive casual games. This group still enjoy the matched play rules but voice concern over power creep, i.e. arms race between mechanics and factions.
That said, AoS seem to be veering heavily into becoming a much more competitive game. As evident by mindset and attitude both here and discords + new rules/seasons. Not saying it is a bad thing to be competitive, I'm just saying that you do not have to go all in win at all costs just because you use the matched play rules.
Furthermore, competitive players will make anything work regardless of NPEs so there's very little downside in addressing the more controversial rules and mechanics to make the experience better on a grander scale. I'd even say the competitive experience would improve as well since it will come down more to wits than abusing mechanics to gain an advantage.
-
4
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
I had a BnB game VS Skaven today.
By the start of turn two I had lost 76,667% of my models due to unnecessary mortal wound spam (no hit or wound roll required).
I am drawing the line here and quitting the hobby. It’s too expensive and time-consuming for me to persue any further while it feels like all I do nowadays is face off against insane bs and bad game design decisions.
I wish all comp. gamers well, you‘ll manage and be fine. For all the other player groups: I am not so sure if you will be fine anymore.
Goodbye guysI recommend exploring other tabletop games on a skirmish level (or standalone games). Like @zilberfrid says, you can just use your AoS stuff as proxies. Some systems are model agnostic too. I haven't met anyone who minds me using GW stuff either as long as I make an appropriate kitbash/sculpt. Most are likely just going to be happy you're interested in their game.
Only having 15 or less models to worry about really cuts back on the pressure to get things done. Malifaux, for example, is fun and most people will won't mind proxies which is nice because you're able to dip your toes into the game before committing to a play style you don't like. Their rules are 100% free and have an amazing app.
Another way to get others excited, and the ball rolling, is to ask around if anyone has a game they'd like to try. The hobby is so much bigger than GW.
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Enoby said:
In all honesty, I think this less cynical outlook is the most likely.
GW definitely likes money, but if they wrote and pointed Slaanesh in regards to money, they've done a very poor job of it. Despite the new release costing them a lot to create, the rules writers seemed to hardly have the time to do much of anything with the new book - and we're the second lowest win rate at the moment, well under older armies that GW probably care about less profits-wise.
But even ignoring that, if these decreases were all in it for the money, I think they'd have also included Slaangors, Glutos, and especially the twins in these decreases/rewrites. I doubt they would have bothered with Sigvald as he's our best selling model already. If this was to make money, they've not done a good job about it (it would have been easy to give Slaangors -2 rend and 2 damage to sell more boxes, and yet they didn't). If 90% of HoS players already have Sigvald then this points drop won't boost his sales, if 75% have Painbringers/Twinsouls and Blissbarbs then the drop may have resulted in a few more boxes (as people may already own a good number), but a Slaangor rewrite (or mega-drop) would likely boost theirs by a significant amount as a smaller proportion will have bought them (especially in large quantities).
I think this is an earnest attempt at targeted balancing, where they're seeing what buffing the core units does so they can make better changes to the rest of the army. If we continue to perform poorly then I think most other units will see a similar buff in the future.
Like in most companies it is a balance. In my experience it is all about selling good design to corporate/business people. On the one end you have the design team who likely want to make the best game they cane but on the other side you have sales telling them these are our objectives.
Even though it might sound cynical I call it being a realist. Companies who end up being publicly traded will end up having a big focus on meeting quarterly goals, stock value, and giving investors a solid return on investment. I wouldn't put GW in the same sentence as Blizzard Activision/EA but we're getting there.
With Slaangors I think it comes down to ROI, i.e. measuring putting time into creating a new warscroll versus just reducing points on other kits they want to sell. This is why certain factions languish in purgatory for so long as time and effort cost money and there has to be proper incentives to make that push.
At least that's been my experience working in design. It is a constant battle to sell your ideas to management. I get it, it is a business, but on the flip side every time GW raise their prices or release a FOMO box people go, "they're a business, of course they want to make money." I do not think what I'm proposing is much different. Since everyone is now running Blissbarbs/PBs/Twins, I think management is due for a bonus.
That said, I'm still quite happy with the change since we're in a lot better place now than before. Plus, on the list of anti-consumer things GW have done this doesn't even make it on the list. Point changes + the WD update has been good to us.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, JackOfBlades said:
Do you have any guess?
They want to push the mortal kits. Daemon kits are old and icky. Mortal kits are expensive (model per £) and people suddenly will need to buy plenty of them. Lots of lists suddenly want 3-4 units of PBs or several units of Twins. Plus, every list also seem to have 3 blissbarb archers too.
I mean, from a Hedonite perspective it is a lot better than before but it is also hard to ignore the not so subtle hand of GW influencing my thoughts and decisions. I would have wanted daemons to be more viable but I guess they've already recouped the profits from those kits as most people already have enough of them.
-
Tzeentch model stands out, good detail, and has suitable levels of body horror. Shame it is in one of those FOMO boxes I won't ever buy.
The LRL model seem kind of bland though. I do not think I would even have reacted unless someone told me it was new.
-
5
-
-
NPE is how you reach an outcome. Winning or losing is not an NPE unless there are rules and mechanics which creates a sour experience.
In an asymmetrically balanced game you constantly need to be aware and wary of mechanics. Especially in a 1v1 game where each unit will affect both players. Designing rules which allows a player to act out a power fantasy works in a single-player game but won't land well in a 1v1 PvP game. Throwing up our hands and going, "well, it is subjective, what can we do?", only serves to muddy the discussion.
Though as rightly pointed out you must always listen to both sides to understand if it is an NPE or not to dilute actually good rules. It is a player versus player game, after all, so it isn't like I am saying each ability must make both players happy as sunshine. Generally speaking though, I do not think I've ever played an asymmetrical PvP game where the crowd control/infiltrator/rogue type wasn't despised for their so-called cheap mechanics. Ideally, you'd want rules which make Player 1 go, "oh, if I had only done X I could have Y, Z, K.", while also making Player 2 feel smart for having pulled something off.
If we take Teclis, to represent his mastery of magic just have him always succeed no matter the roll. 2d6 (but always count as cast on a minimum of 5) + X amount of casts which always go off and never miscasts. Plus some more stuff to amp up the flavour/power (I do not want to have a rules discussion on Teclis), the point I want to make is that you easily create rules which doesn't put your opponent out of the game feeling like there's nothing they can do.
-
1
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I do not think AoS is going to be buried away just that the releases are going to be crowded with a lot more power armour. My comment was focused on the release cycles of battletomes which aren't released in a round-robin style but rather than big sellers are cycled back in before other unreleased tomes. Eventually they get to all of them but we have seen certain factions getting preferential treatment.
The complexity isn't just about new players but your ability to keep yourself in the loop. That said, GW are improving in terms of digital releases but even so, it could become a bit much when you'll need different books for different incarnates, battlepacks, and so on. Guess we'll see and perhaps I just gotta accept the fact I'm more of a casual gamer these days.
I wholeheartedly agree on the pile of opportunity and I think it is something which should be more widely talked about and encouraged. Rather than seeing it as a point of shame see it as a point of inspiration and drive to finish stuff before buying more. That's also why I'm rather annoyed at the bundles and versus boxes since they add more and more gray stuff.