New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

 

40 years of cynicism right there! 

 

 

Close!

[jaxom]

From my experiences, in 10th edition lower point games benefit detachments which benefit less units in the codex. It was simpler for me to get to the point limit using only units which benefited from the detachment rule and stratagems. Those detachments - for the most part - are now 2 DP. I can keep using them in them lower point games, along with the now 3 DP detachments I would also use at lower points. I didn't see a difference in "power level" between the two types. It came down to the tools the detachment gave me and my plan on how I would use them. Some gave more tools, some gave less tools. Some synergized with my chosen units better than others.

 

I benefit from the new detachment system at larger point games because if I choose a limited detachment, I can fill my list with appropriate units, and then add a second detachment and add units appropriate to it. I have very limited options for the second (i.e. 1 DP) detachment at the moment. I expect that will change over time, either as new detachments are released or as I get models which benefit.

 

My lists using what are now 3 DP detachments don't change.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m just a little sad the main marine dex doesn’t have a 1DP jump pack detachment option.

 

fits for RG and BA very well. 
something like an extra 2” of movement or reroll advance rolls for jump infantry. Or maybe give weapons carried by jump infantry the assault key word?

 

an enhancement for a jump character to allow their unit to DS 2” closer to an enemy unit.

 

no idea off the top of my head what sort of strats it could have.

 

reactive move for 2CP?

fall back and shoot for 1CP?

[jaxom]

54 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m just a little sad the main marine dex doesn’t have a 1DP jump pack detachment option.

That's where my head went I saw this thread

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m just a little sad the main marine dex doesn’t have a 1DP jump pack detachment option.

 

fits for RG and BA very well. 
something like an extra 2” of movement or reroll advance rolls for jump infantry. Or maybe give weapons carried by jump infantry the assault key word?

 

an enhancement for a jump character to allow their unit to DS 2” closer to an enemy unit.

 

no idea off the top of my head what sort of strats it could have.

 

reactive move for 2CP?

fall back and shoot for 1CP?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was one in the eventual codex release. I'd just say to be patient. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there was one in the eventual codex release. I'd just say to be patient. 

Eh. I’ll give the edition a chance at some point but I’m not really liking the look of it tbh and don’t expect to play more than half a dozen total games this edition so not a big deal.

 

just surprised.

[Kommisar_K]

Just caught up with this thread, want to add my 2 cents on this detachment issue*. Gonna be brutally honest as some things need to be said. Look how people switched opinions on 3DP as soon as GW switched. It's clear:

Spoiler

We are all, clearly, Alpharius.

 

* I'll put it in spoiler for the sake of those who'd rather not read a scalding truth. 

Edited June 14 by Kommisar_K

[Antarius]

That whole detachment hubbub seems weird to me.

I mean, I totally get the "this should be my army rule, not a specific detachment" angle, but at the same time, I think it's a little weird that we as a community have been very vocal on the subject of the vastly differing power levels of detachments, and when GW actually acknowledges that disparity and invents a system to deal with it, people complain that they can't being the most powerful detachments and/or that they can't bring more detachments in addition to the most powerful detachments. I mean, surely the point with detachment points is to balance the freaking power level of detachments?

I think it's a positive that GW listens to the community and I think they do it more than we usually give them credit for, but I'm also a bit worried that this time they've just caved to a lot of knee-jerk complaints before the intended change had the time to show its worth. I mean "max two detachments points, but you can always bring three" doesn't honestly sound like the system anyone envisioned, does it? "If you really want to bring 3DP in a 1000 pts game, you can, but your opponent gets 3DP too" sounds more like an actual fix/optional rule they could have gone for, while still keeping the original intent and not "making" everybody just take the 3DP detachments that the internet says is optimal, leaving the intended system dead in the water.

But as always with these matters, we shall see. If I had to guess, I'd say DP will probably change and new detachments will be generally be 1 and 2 DP, but who knows?

[irlLordy]

The uproar was entirely of GW's own making when they made it so that Imperial Agents players couldn't bring any detachments at 1000 points (hardly a knee-jerk complaint in my own opinion). They could have easily resolved it by bumping some of the IA detachments back down to 1 or 2 DP, but instead they chose to throw away their balancing tool and just let people take whatever at 1000 points.

[Mogger351]

45 minutes ago, irlLordy said:

The uproar was entirely of GW's own making when they made it so that Imperial Agents players couldn't bring any detachments at 1000 points (hardly a knee-jerk complaint in my own opinion). They could have easily resolved it by bumping some of the IA detachments back down to 1 or 2 DP, but instead they chose to throw away their balancing tool and just let people take whatever at 1000 points.

I'll just repeat what I said earlier/elsewhere.

 

They've fumbled communications big time on agents start to end. It seems clear they're not intended to continue existing as a full faction, but they need to explain the plan for them and it'll be less harmful that messing around now and pulling a bait and switch later.

[Antarius]

1 hour ago, irlLordy said:

The uproar was entirely of GW's own making when they made it so that Imperial Agents players couldn't bring any detachments at 1000 points (hardly a knee-jerk complaint in my own opinion). They could have easily resolved it by bumping some of the IA detachments back down to 1 or 2 DP, but instead they chose to throw away their balancing tool and just let people take whatever at 1000 points.

I'm not talking about the agents thing so much, as people complaining about detachments in general. The agents thing is obviously an oversight/a special situation where the army is just always handled somewhat haphazardly, because they don't really know what to do with it.
But yes, we agree that the handling is bungled, because, like I wrote in my post, going back on it sort of leaves the whole system dead in the water (as most people will go "why take a 2DP detachment when you can take a 3DP one instead?").
But we'll see how it eventually works out.

[DemonGSides]

I don't think they ever really cared about the 1k points.  The DP system seems pretty obviously built/balanced for the 2k point level that competitive Warhammer is played at predominately.  They should have just fully ignored the system for below 2k because anything below that is just a less serious game and doesn't need that much hand holding.

[Rogue]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

But yes, we agree that the handling is bungled, because, like I wrote in my post, going back on it sort of leaves the whole system dead in the water (as most people will go "why take a 2DP detachment when you can take a 3DP one instead?").
But we'll see how it eventually works out.

 

I'd take the GSC 2dp detachments over the 3dp one, for various reasons.

 

- I have a small gaming group, and limited armies, so varying the detachment helps to keep things interesting for my opponents.

- I don't really like Host of Ascension (the sole 3dp option): I'm not playing Cults to shoot at things, I don't have the Benefictus model, and it doesn't suit my style.

- Conversely, I have a lot of fun with Xenocreed, Biosanctic and Outlander, which are all 2dp.

 

Would I take the extra 1dp detachment at 2000 points? Of course.

 

Would I feel the need to 'maximise' my list by always taking the one 3dp option at anything less than 2000 points? Not really, no.

 

(My headcanon is that my Cult are pretty tactics-agnostic - they'll adapt to the situation, theatre, opposition and so on. Sometimes an aberrant spearhead is the right move, but sometimes it's better to employ the hit-and-run bikers, or whatever. Detachments are like unit choice - fluid from game to game.)

[phandaal]

17 hours ago, Scribe said:

Wait, so 11th is changing within a week?

 

You guys still pay GW for this privilege of their tight and coherent rules systems?

 

You know how they say "no time like the present?" Well, for GW rulesets it is kind of like that, only it is the exact opposite.

 

The best time to play a new GW ruleset is after a few years of beta testing from their loyal customers, right before they tell those customers to start testing a new set of rules. 

 

We are working towards the perfect game, when Warhammer 40k 40th Edition finally releases some time in the 2100s.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

I don't think they ever really cared about the 1k points.  The DP system seems pretty obviously built/balanced for the 2k point level that competitive Warhammer is played at predominately.  They should have just fully ignored the system for below 2k because anything below that is just a less serious game and doesn't need that much hand holding.

That's such a poor take, what happened to "what is good for competitive is good for casual"?

 

Maybe they could make more of an effort for 1k rather than continuing to devote all efforts to existing comps.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

That's such a poor take, what happened to "what is good for competitive is good for casual"?

 

Maybe they could make more of an effort for 1k rather than continuing to devote all efforts to existing comps.

I'm not sure how it applies, and the current outcome as it stands does the exact same thing that I suggested.  I would've preferred they stuck to their guns at least long enough to see if the 1k stuff was worth continuing with the DP limit, but now we will never know.

 

They tried to make an effort for 1k, and people got loud.  They're responding to customer input, as the people calling this a win have said.  This is what those other people wanted, no?

 

My point wasn't that 1k is a bad game or anything; just that at 1k, it doesn't need the hand holding that competitive points costs do because at 1k, people are playing the game for fun.  There will always be shark-y people, but I'm not sure why they bothered with the DP system at all for 1k because they could've just said what this outcome was from the get-go and it wouldn't have been a furor.

Not sure what the poor take is.  I never said "What is good for competitive is good for casual"; that's Karhedron's go to.  I think competitive mindset is a rot within the community and if people were just a little less sticky about making sure everything was competitively viable, the game and the hobby would be better off.  That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a competitive format; ideally that would be it's own thing and people could just have fun the way they want to.  The recent discussions around DP show that that's probably impossible, because the exact people who should have a more relaxed and casual attitude (People not playing at 2k points in competitive formats) quite literally couldn't handle house ruling the DP stuff or just playing the game how they wanted to.

 

 

[Antarius]

If what was good for competitive was also good for casual, we wouldn't see casual players complaining about the changes competitive players like and vice versa. We definitely wouldn't see so many people complaining that the game is being centered too much on (and designed around) competitive play.

That's not to say that the two are always diametrically opposed; there is probably some overlap where things are good for both types of games.

 

However, I definitely think self-professed casual gamers often need to chillax a bit and not follow the competitive mindset so much, because that's definitely not good for casual games.

Edited June 15 by Antarius
fixed a typo :/

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

That's not to say that the two are always diametrically opposed; there is probably some overlap where things are good for both types of games.

 

This is true. There are some things that improve the game for both sides, but those are usually less "casual/competitive elements that also benefit competitive/casual players" and more "basic common sense/quality checks that make the game fundamentally functional". One example of something I think has been left behind from previous editions and the game suffers for their loss at every level is slightly more in-depth terrain rules. Having distinctions between clear, difficult, impassable and dangerous terrain can both add flavour, and also adds another factor/variable that can be used to balance a scenario; a tank that can just bulldoze though 90% of terrain on the board is harder to balance for than one that can smash through barricades etc but risks getting bogged down or immobilized in terrain that would be a mild inconvenience to infantry.

 

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

However, I definitely think self-professed casual gamers often need to chillax a bit and not follow the competitive mindset so much, because that's definitely not good for casual games.

I'd also agree here but with the slight caveat that with GW forcing the constant re-balancing of the game and adjustments to points values and core rules to cater to the competitive crowd, who have somehow not yet twigged that if GW can't get the game even close to balanced after 40 years of trying they're never going to manage it and should honestly just give up, it's becoming much harder to ignore it. It's one of many reasons why the idea of the app being pushed as the "proper" way to play fills me with disgust; at least with the rules being in books, if your group is more narrative-driven and/or doesn't give a Skaven's rump for tournament balance, you can just ignore the points updates and play using the points printed in the books. Which you can't do if they go all-on on the app and there aren't any books.

[TheArtilleryman]

This is a massive set of catch 22s for me. I love having the printed books, but I hate having the rules updated constantly and having to keep buying the same books over and over. I hate it even more when you buy the book and the rules get updated somewhere else within weeks. I love the idea of an app to make armies easier to build, but I hate the idea of a subscription for said app, especially when you still need to buy the physical codex to get the most out of the app. 
 

At this point I feel like playing older editions is the way to go, and when the inevitable new stuff gets released, either ignore it or proxy it as something else.

Edited June 14 by TheArtilleryman

[DemonGSides]

31 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

This is a massive set of catch 22s for me. I love having the printed books, but I hate having the rules updated constantly and having to keep buying the same books over and over. I hate it even more when you buy the book and the rules get updated somewhere else within weeks. I love the idea of an app to make armies easier to build, but I hate the idea of a subscription for said app, especially when you still need to buy the physical codex to get the most out of the app. 
 

At this point I feel like playing older editions is the way to go, and when the inevitable new stuff gets released, either ignore it or proxy it as something else.

 

If they had the subscription also just give you total access to ALL rules I could swallow the cost of that easily. It does sound like they're sort of solving for this by allowing you to trade lists through the new app, but still.

 

I do think some people should just play older editions. Especially older older editions as they provide a very different game, that some people would prefer. No shame on that. 

[Ahzek451]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

 if GW can't get the game even close to balanced after 40 years of trying they're never going to manage it and should honestly just give up,

Well its not so much they can't, its more like they won't. They refuse to budge from an edition turn business model. Its peddled as improvement each time(and sometimes there are legit improvements) but really its just change for the sake of change whether you like it or not. Its ironically very Tzeentchy.  The game will not ever meet a level of polish because it messes with the cycle. 

[Tastyfish]

3 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

This is a massive set of catch 22s for me. I love having the printed books, but I hate having the rules updated constantly and having to keep buying the same books over and over. I hate it even more when you buy the book and the rules get updated somewhere else within weeks. I love the idea of an app to make armies easier to build, but I hate the idea of a subscription for said app, especially when you still need to buy the physical codex to get the most out of the app. 
 

At this point I feel like playing older editions is the way to go, and when the inevitable new stuff gets released, either ignore it or proxy it as something else.

 

I kind of wonder how much of a business there would be in producing sticker patches for the books

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

Well its not so much they can't, its more like they won't. They refuse to budge from an edition turn business model. Its peddled as improvement each time(and sometimes there are legit improvements) but really its just change for the sake of change whether you like it or not. Its ironically very Tzeentchy.  The game will not ever meet a level of polish because it messes with the cycle. 

Pretty much. There was a brief time when the edition cycle was very much just the result of incremental improvements to the core system being compiled into a new book, and a huge amount of pre-existing material was fully compatible and perfectly serviceable in-game. 4th edition's core rulebook was pretty much the "3.5 edition" era and its sweeping array of improvements condensed into one tome (one of my favourite 40K covers actually; 3rd edition's cover was more grandiose and a fantastic piece of art but there is something to be said for that imposing, weirdly dread-inducing monolithic slab of a cover with the "IV" engraved on the skull); certainly I've found you can use basically any 3E or 4E Codex you want with the 4E core rules, which is convenient because I still don't know if I prefer the 3rd or 4th edition Tyranid Codex. 4th has some really cool rules and some of the most customizable units in the history of the game -Carnifex my beloved!- but 3rd has the incredible custom Hive Fleet rules.

 

...Unfortunately in practice this golden age didn't even last 'till the end of 4th as shortly before then GW experienced a Kirby-induced brain drain, with much of their core talent (Andy Chambers and Rick Priestly amongst them) leaving for greener pastures, and whilst there were flashes of brilliance here and there, mostly from Phil Kelly, 5th began a slow decline that sped up into a meteoric descent around 6th, and then hit an absolute nadir in 7th. Weirdly enough the very, very end of 7th actually seemed to have some good content, notably the latter-end IA books and the Traitor Legions supplement...and then a few months later 8th rolled out and rendered everything totally obsolete.

 

I'm still not sure if the decline after the Great Talent Exodus was just trying and failing to iterate meaningfully on the system without the guiding hand of Chambers and Priestly, or if they intentionally steered the development team towards the current model's ancestor (could be either honestly), but there is a definite change in design philosophy after that. If one looks at WHFB it's a similar story, where during the majority of 6th most of the books were pretty evenly matched and operated under the same basic parameters (notably a very decent balance of fun fantastical nonsense and historical-style strategic movement based gameplay) but after the core talent left there was a VERY drastic shift in how the rules were written, with the final army books being pretty broken and more focused on "bring the big killy things to win" rather than the prior "use clever movement and careful positioning to hit the enemy where they're weakest". And then 7th WHFB came out and followed a similar trajectory to 40K 5th, with occasional cool bits buried in a deluge of what would be better described as power jet-powered takeoff with full afterburner than power creep that felt annoyingly intentional. Regardless, it definitely laid the groundwork for the edition churn of today.

 

One thing I've noticed about games that are fairly successful and regarded as well written is their editions tend to last a lot longer, new editions are far more infrequent and are very much "compilations of all the improvements we've made to the core system in a new package" rather than a complete reset, and most of the rules-based sales comes from honest to god supplements of new content rather than replacing what already exists. Corvus Belli's Infinity is (or was, I haven't been keeping up with them recently but I've not heard of any Warmahordes*-level disasters) a good example of this, as if memory serves it's only on its third edition and has been around a long while.

 

I suppose to condense all of that, I think the ideal approach to edition refreshes is as a natural, incremental side effect of the gradual improvement of an already decent system, rather than an intentional and scheduled event that shakes everything up on purpose just because they can. That's not what we've got, unfortunately. At least, not at the moment...

 

 

 

*Though to be fair it doesn't even have to be a Privateer Press level of "shooting yourself in the foot with a recoilless rifle" blunder that can spell the downfall of a wargame system. GW seems to have some kind of curse on the wargaming industry where anyone that gets moderately successful will either fall afoul of simple misfortune (Warzone/Mutant Chronicles' multiple reboots were the results of the owning companies going under for reasons completely unrelated to the game itself, for example, and I don't recall there being a "bad" edition) or self-sabotage from poor but understandable choices (Prodos over-extending on licenses and also messing up at least one Kickstarter).

 

Though if we're talking mythical levels of incompetence and/or outright malice destroying a potential challenger to James Workshop, I can think of no better example than Trench Crusade, which went from a breakout star in the vibes-driven miniature-agnostic skirmish game scene to an absolute laughing stock following their decisions to exile anyone they SUSPECTED of having unrelated personal views that didn't align exactly with theirs, shifting from miniatures-agnostic but with official STL support to "you have to use our official plastic models, also you can't even advertise your STLs- which we spent ages encouraging you to make- as even being compatible with our system, sorry, no refunds!" and putting out apparently highly sub-par product (notably sub-Etsy tier FDM terrain) resulting in a fast-shrinking gaggle of sycophants on social media claiming they "gatekept" the strawmen they had created for themselves after everyone else either got ejected by the purity spiral or just left what was obviously turning into a failed experiment. Seriously, Ditch Jihad's downfall could have a full essay written on it and if it weren't for it being outside the scope of this forum I would, but the point is holy gak GW clearly maxed out their luck stat. Or they have Tzeentch working for them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

Pretty much. There was a brief time when the edition cycle was very much just the result of incremental improvements to the core system being compiled into a new book, and a huge amount of pre-existing material was fully compatible and perfectly serviceable in-game. 4th edition's core rulebook was pretty much the "3.5 edition" era and its sweeping array of improvements condensed into one tome (one of my favourite 40K covers actually; 3rd edition's cover was more grandiose and a fantastic piece of art but there is something to be said for that imposing, weirdly dread-inducing monolithic slab of a cover with the "IV" engraved on the skull); certainly I've found you can use basically any 3E or 4E Codex you want with the 4E core rules, which is convenient because I still don't know if I prefer the 3rd or 4th edition Tyranid Codex. 4th has some really cool rules and some of the most customizable units in the history of the game -Carnifex my beloved!- but 3rd has the incredible custom Hive Fleet rules.

 

...Unfortunately in practice this golden age didn't even last 'till the end of 4th as shortly before then GW experienced a Kirby-induced brain drain, with much of their core talent (Andy Chambers and Rick Priestly amongst them) leaving for greener pastures, and whilst there were flashes of brilliance here and there, mostly from Phil Kelly, 5th began a slow decline that sped up into a meteoric descent around 6th, and then hit an absolute nadir in 7th. Weirdly enough the very, very end of 7th actually seemed to have some good content, notably the latter-end IA books and the Traitor Legions supplement...and then a few months later 8th rolled out and rendered everything totally obsolete.

 

I'm still not sure if the decline after the Great Talent Exodus was just trying and failing to iterate meaningfully on the system without the guiding hand of Chambers and Priestly, or if they intentionally steered the development team towards the current model's ancestor (could be either honestly), but there is a definite change in design philosophy after that. If one looks at WHFB it's a similar story, where during the majority of 6th most of the books were pretty evenly matched and operated under the same basic parameters (notably a very decent balance of fun fantastical nonsense and historical-style strategic movement based gameplay) but after the core talent left there was a VERY drastic shift in how the rules were written, with the final army books being pretty broken and more focused on "bring the big killy things to win" rather than the prior "use clever movement and careful positioning to hit the enemy where they're weakest". And then 7th WHFB came out and followed a similar trajectory to 40K 5th, with occasional cool bits buried in a deluge of what would be better described as power jet-powered takeoff with full afterburner than power creep that felt annoyingly intentional. Regardless, it definitely laid the groundwork for the edition churn of today.

 

One thing I've noticed about games that are fairly successful and regarded as well written is their editions tend to last a lot longer, new editions are far more infrequent and are very much "compilations of all the improvements we've made to the core system in a new package" rather than a complete reset, and most of the rules-based sales comes from honest to god supplements of new content rather than replacing what already exists. Corvus Belli's Infinity is (or was, I haven't been keeping up with them recently but I've not heard of any Warmahordes*-level disasters) a good example of this, as if memory serves it's only on its third edition and has been around a long while.

 

I suppose to condense all of that, I think the ideal approach to edition refreshes is as a natural, incremental side effect of the gradual improvement of an already decent system, rather than an intentional and scheduled event that shakes everything up on purpose just because they can. That's not what we've got, unfortunately. At least, not at the moment...

 

 

 

*Though to be fair it doesn't even have to be a Privateer Press level of "shooting yourself in the foot with a recoilless rifle" blunder that can spell the downfall of a wargame system. GW seems to have some kind of curse on the wargaming industry where anyone that gets moderately successful will either fall afoul of simple misfortune (Warzone/Mutant Chronicles' multiple reboots were the results of the owning companies going under for reasons completely unrelated to the game itself, for example, and I don't recall there being a "bad" edition) or self-sabotage from poor but understandable choices (Prodos over-extending on licenses and also messing up at least one Kickstarter).

 

Though if we're talking mythical levels of incompetence and/or outright malice destroying a potential challenger to James Workshop, I can think of no better example than Trench Crusade, which went from a breakout star in the vibes-driven miniature-agnostic skirmish game scene to an absolute laughing stock following their decisions to exile anyone they SUSPECTED of having unrelated personal views that didn't align exactly with theirs, shifting from miniatures-agnostic but with official STL support to "you have to use our official plastic models, also you can't even advertise your STLs- which we spent ages encouraging you to make- as even being compatible with our system, sorry, no refunds!" and putting out apparently highly sub-par product (notably sub-Etsy tier FDM terrain) resulting in a fast-shrinking gaggle of sycophants on social media claiming they "gatekept" the strawmen they had created for themselves after everyone else either got ejected by the purity spiral or just left what was obviously turning into a failed experiment. Seriously, Ditch Jihad's downfall could have a full essay written on it and if it weren't for it being outside the scope of this forum I would, but the point is holy gak GW clearly maxed out their luck stat. Or they have Tzeentch working for them.

TBH I think the only reason GW hasn’t crashed and burned is a weird combination of momentum and inertia resulting in them being too big to fail now.

 

the momentum of being the biggest and #1 wargaming company, and the inertia of the play base just taking whatever they give us no matter how much we hate it. Cool models and a well established amazing universe keeps people in a game that an outsider would assume they hate based on how much they complain about the rules.

Edited June 15 by Lord_Ikka

[Antarius]

I agree with a lot of that.

I think the explanation for their longevity and continued succes is also that GW - despite both their actual, real flaws and the ones people like to invent - are just very, very good at a lot of things, chief among which are

a) being a company and being run as such

b) hiring the right people for the job (the job being "running a tight, professional, drama-free ship", more than "being a genius designer")

c) having a (mostly) clearly defined and immediately recognisable aesthetic

d) having the most iconic settings out there (you could argue Star Wars, I guess, but it seems to just not have as much appeal when it comes to wargaming)

e) (mostly) sticking to their guns in (mostly) the right areas (there are exceptions, of course, but the core appeal of their settings and products have been consistent, I would argue)

and, last but definitely not least

f) producing the best Tzeentch-damned miniatures out there for so long that they're basically synonymous with fantasy wargaming for most people

There have obviously been a lot of missteps along the road, but let's not forget that it's also been a very, very long road, and there haven't been any that have really caused them to stumble - at least not for long enough that they've actually fallen by the wayside, to continue the metaphor.
Despite the drama-tubers and the seemingly inborn need of wargamers to complain (that I am certainly not above myself), GW are decidedly not just a bunch of amateurs and the many people who have tried and failed to compete with them is proof of that, I would say.
Now, of course there are structural reasons as well; it's not easy to competet with an entrenched market leader, but I still think their ability to retain their spot at least tell us that they're not completely inept, despite what Discourse Minis or whoever might pretend in order to stir up traffic or just scratch that "wargamer's complaining" itch.

Running any operation, from a simple CtA vow where it's just you, your miniatures and your schedule that need to come together and all the way up to a multi-billion corporation that operates worldwide, is the art of the possible. For every blunder we notice, whether it's a particularly cross-eyed model, a communication error or a ridiculous oversight in a rulebook, there's a hell of a lot of things that go right (or, as in the case of my own minis, are at least serviceable).
Everybody makes mistakes, so I think it's fair to say that missteps are inevitable but how you handle them matters. GW's missteps are just very, very public most of the time (I'm very happy that my post from yesterday where I wrote "casual" instead of "competitive" was not a WarCom post, for example, or the internet would have exploded right in my face, whether I edited the post or not).

Another big part of the explanation is that they quickly grew to a size where they simply weren't dependent on one or two people and their whims - although, where would they be game-wise without Jervis, Rick and Andy and would they have as iconic an aesthetic without John? Probably not anywhere near where they are now, but I think these people's ability to buckle down and work for the greater good and not sweat the details or get caught up in personal drama is almost as remarkable as their skills at their actual jobs.
You can argue that GW is basically the McD's of wargaming at this point and that you get better "food" at some Michelin restaurant and that might be true (the analogy isn't perfect, of course; McD's is not actually cheap here, but most gourmet restaurants are more expensive). But on the other hand, you don't get those stories (like the recent Noma scandal) where the head chef is a genius but it turns out he's super abusive and impossible to work with and so the whole thing suddenly implodes.

At the end of the day, there is, I would argue, a fundamental tension between creating the best possible artistic product and the most marketable product. Balancing those two is hard, if not impossible, and for GW as a company the latter clearly takes precedence. But I think they still manage to employ people who genuinely care about the former and I think the people in charge, by and large, also know that the former is the reason why the latter is possible. You can't sell plastic at that price point if it's not given a form that really appeals to people.

 

And now I've taken a good chunk out of my prep-time for my CtA stuff, just to write a novel-length apologetic post about GW, despite actually being quite cynical about them most of the time. See? That's how good they are, the evil, scheming bastards 

 

 

In closing, I'd just like to repeat my mantra that your hobby should make you happy, so concentrate on what you like and chuck out what you don't. It's not directly related to the topic at hand; but I think it's always worth remembering, especially when we get a bit despondent about a new edition or the nature of corporate entities producing a creative product for 4+ decades. We can choose to not go along with the things we don't like and make our own hobby what we want it to be.