Is GW Wrong?

[crazyredpraetorian]

GW obviously wants their customers to run higher model count armies and have been pushing the consumer that way with cheaper(points wise) basic troops. However, it seems that there is a backlash. The average model count is not going up, using the abundance of mech armies and big bug armies for example. Is their marketing plan wrong? Are they misreading the market? Do people want big killy units with low model counts or armies with a ton of mediiocre troops? What do you as a GW customer want? Lower model count armies or higher model count armies?

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Denzark]

GW obviously wants their customers to run higher model count armies and have been pushing the consumer that way with cheaper(points wise) basic troops. However, it seems that there is a backlash. The average model count is not going up, using the abundance of mech armies and big bug armies for example. Is their marketing plan wrong?No - see the thread about profits going up Are they misreading the market? Is their market not the 1 or 2 year teeny boppers who between them and their parents ***** a load of money on masses of troops, before flogging them to empoverished vets on ebay who have mortgages and kids?Do people want big killy units with low model counts or armies with a ton of mediiocre troops? No idea and I think whilst they're makin' bacon they won't particularly care either What do you as a GW customer want? 4th ed codex CSM back but I won't hold my breath. Also some xenos codex (Yes, DE, Tau, Necron and Eldar) to reset the 'Xenos players whining about new marine codex' clock Lower model count armies or higher model count armies?

What I don't like, and find wrong morally is economic decisions influencing game design and some units becoming chepaer just to flog more. But wrong in terms of success - it seems to be working if you check the GW bottom line, and as I can obviously afford my plastic crack I will put and shut up about price increases...

[Nabterayl]

I'm actually pretty comfortable with the way things are right now. I don't play with anybody who runs a real horde, though (I'm at the top end of my local group with 60-70 models on the table at 1500 points), so that undoubtedly informs my vision. I agree with Aldramech that it often feels like there's not a lot of room for clever maneuvering, but in my opinion that's more a function of game length and table size than number of models on the table.

[DarkLink]

I'm actually pretty comfortable with the way things are right now. I don't play with anybody who runs a real horde, though (I'm at the top end of my local group with 60-70 models on the table at 1500 points), so that undoubtedly informs my vision. I agree with Aldramech that it often feels like there's not a lot of room for clever maneuvering, but in my opinion that's more a function of game length and table size than number of models on the table.

Right, we don't have too many horde players. I do prefer smaller model count games with plenty of room to manuver, though.

[sonsoftaurus]

I don't see mech or big units being a "problem" for GW.

Horde player buys two $22-30 infantry boxes. Mech player buys one of those and a $30-35 transport. Big thing player buys a $45-$60 kit. If anything, with them making transports cheaper in points the mech players will end up spending more in $ than the horde ones.

[tjkopena]

I'd be curious to hear if anyone has real observations or data that a trend toward larger armies really equates to more models sold. I would think that people by and large probably spend what they're going to spend on the hobby, regardless of army size. If games tended to be smaller, then I could easily believe people would just compensate by having more armies. I know I would have already started an IG army if I wasn't really trying to slowly work up my Marines to being full painted for this year's 'Ard Boyz.

Similarly, is there actually a trend toward bigger armies? It seems there has been over the editions, but what's the growth over the last 3--5+ years? I realize some of the tournaments have gone upward (and sometimes back down I thought), but I have my doubts about what that actually says about the bulk of the games being played out there.

[BuFFo]

Horde player uses eBay or online stores

Fixed it for ya :)

[Chumbalaya]

I certainly like the direction we're headed, 40k has never been better as far as I'm concerned.

I like seeing armies across the table as opposed to a handful of dudes. I also like cracking out my Deathwing for a little 300 action. We can do both, and having the choice makes it all the better for it.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

The biggest problem I have is that the sheer quantity of ork models I can drop down, regardless of what they are, mean I can probably swamp 2/3 objectives, and still lose 2/3 of my army. The more elite armies, while more skilled and using stronger stuff (occasionally), don't seem to be able to dish out enough to make sure that they can destroy it. They all need to gang up on one thing at a time for any real effect. I think most of it stems from the cover saves, to be fair. You have an unit of 30 guys, then you give them a cover save which negates half of the wounds? wai aye, man.

[Denzark]

Howay marra, divvn't clart on...

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Howay marra, divvn't clart on...

Hew dafty, shut it, or I'll slice ur neck wiv a cricket stump.

Anywon want sum tac?

North Easteners: Butchering all forms of language since all this here were fields.

EDIT: I don't suppose you're calling Norfolk "God's Country" because people drive through there and think "Good God!"?

Haha, old joke around here :P

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Learn it and love it, man :P

[Denzark]

Very droll, never heard that, but i'll start to use it...:D

[Lerra]

I do think the table has become too crowded at 1750+, but that can be alleviated by encouraging greater use of reserves (which the tyranid codex seems to do). If a third of your army starts in reserve, horde armies are unlikely to have all 100+ models on the table at the same time, which greatly reduces crowding.

I prefer to play at 1500 because it leaves more room for maneuvering and tactics. At 2000 it can be hard to find a flank because many armies cover their entire deployment zone from table edge to table edge, and those games lead to a more boring "march forward and meet in the middle" kind of game.

[Auroth]

I think the point drop really only apply to horde armies. Space Marines, for example, actually were increased to 16 points a pop from their 15, iirc.

[david5th]

I am not sure which i prefer. Smaller armies give you more room to maneuver but less to play with. Larger armies means more units but possibilty of forgetting what your doing with each one.

[Ordo]

in my opinion i think that cost wise buying larger models or mechs will end up costing alot more then buying a few troop boxes

[Subject Keyword]

Also some xenos codex (Yes, DE, Tau, Necron and Eldar) to reset the 'Xenos players whining about new marine codex' clock

I'm pretty sure asking for a codex that is playable with the new edition that they published is not "whining".

I can still pull off solid wins with Necrons, but I'm also losing a lot to ferociously noobish tactics while employing solid ones myself. You can know all the places to cut a chicken like the back of your hand, but if you're using a hammer instead of a knife the chicken will not come apart.

If GW would just like to remove DE, Necrons, SoB, Deamon Hunters, etc. from the game altogether rather than torturing us with false hope and empty promises of support, I would be fine with that. Then it would be more honestly centered on Marinesturbation, and I could quit and play a game for grownups.

But I love Warhammer and I love my 'Crons and until the Space 'Roid Ragers take everything over, I'm going to stick it out.

As long as GW places profit over their rabidly loyal fan base I will be "whining."