More Space marine units going to Legends

[Kallas]

12 minutes ago, LittlePlasticHomies said:

I think one thing most of us can probably agree on is that the datasheet bloat isn’t great for gameplay and that the SKU bloat was probably untenable from an ops perspective.

Bloat caused by...the pre-existing units, or the dozens of similar-but-totally-different units introduced at a later date? 

 

Devastators: one datasheet, one SKU

Desolators, Eradicators: two datasheets, two SKUs - presumably more coming once they make more 

 

or how about:

Space Marine Commander box, with tons of bits to make various characters: one box, one SKU

612 Primaris Captains and Lieutenant models: 8,304 boxes and SKUs 

 

I agree with the general principle, bloat (both datasheet and SKU) is pretty bad. The irony is that the Primaris was is inarguably worse, from anything other than a forcing sales perspective. The only way it works out better is by literally forcing people to buy entirely separate boxes for different things, thereby arbitrarily pushing people into spending more (ignoring the fact that people will happily buy multiple boxes of things for mixing and matching).

[LittlePlasticHomies]

That’s not a bad point!

 

I guess my question is what do we expect? I assume they’ll continue selling new, value-add products because those sell. If that assumption is correct then it also seems they can’t/won’t support the old ones forever.

[The Lost Son]

4 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I have to say I never liked that predator was just a rhino with a turret on top. I think a tank and APC should have different designs. And then they of course repeated that with the impulsor and the gladiators...

 

It is too bad that they're so adamant about keeping HH and 40K ranges separate. Sicaran is really nice marine battletank design, way better than either predators or gladiators. 

There's a few reasons both in and out of universe for the predator (and most marine tanks) sharing hulls. 

 

Firstly STC, Games Workshop's second greatest cost saving initiative.

Much like the original Titanicus doubling sprues and inventing the heresy to justify it the standard template construction allowed for a single sprue to be cut in plastic and then much cheaper metal moulds to be used for new variants. All Imperial vehicles followed this pattern. 

 

Second in universe it's never been a battle tank granted it was all we had for a long time but it's role was supposed to be a support vehicle. 

There's also probably something in there that would reference the Codex stopping marines having total war capabilities. 

 

Totally agree about the Sicaran though that does look great and it's a shame it's not readily available to use outside of 30k. 

 

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

 

None of it ever needed to happen, and especially not in the manner GW pursued.

 

About the Predator not being battletank-y - that actually tracks with it being based off the Rhino chassis, which is not a main battle tank; it's an STC for a multi-purpose chassis, the primary function (ie, the Rhino) being a transport. The Predator is an off-shoot of the design, not a wholesale design, so it not being quite battletank-y fits IMO.

Funnily enough I managed to get hold of a copy of Imperial Armour Volume 2 and it mentions that the Predator's distant pre-Crusade ancestor was an IFV, with a limited transport capacity (before at some point having the transport capacity deleted, and the Razorback- the STC for which was only recovered near the end of the Heresy- taking over the IFV role). It makes sense really when you think about it; the Destructor's autocannon is a quite decent weapon for use against heavy infantry and light vehicles, and the Annihilator's lascannons (or indeed, the lascannons on either Predator's sponsons should it mount them) enables the relatively small, fast and lightweight tank to punch far above its weight as an anti-armour unit. I'm not sure how you'd categorize it in real-world tank terms, it's not an IFV because it doesn't have a transport capacity, but it's definitely not an MBT either. I suppose the closest comparison would be a light tank like the CVRT family or the obsolete "cruiser tank" designation.

[roryokane]

Looks like they’ve added the Dreadnought to the list too. Bye-bye Boxnaughts. :(

[Antarius]

I think one thing that we need to remember as customers and hobbyists is that this is GW's business model and has been for some time (arguably forever, but at the very least as far back as when they went to weekly releases). They produce loads of new stuff all the time, they want us to buy it and they won't (and can't) keep it around forever (both for practical reasons and because they want us to buy the new stuff; both set of reasons are business reasons at the end of the day, of course). That being said, they also want to keep us happy (to the degree that it keeps us buying stuff/as long as it doesn't interfere with us buying stuff) and so, they're usually going to provide us with rules for outdated/OOP stuff or, as in this case, at least a way to use it (whether you or I like that way or not is beside the point).

 

The people in the design studio love games and miniatures and obviously want to produce good games and miniatures and it's almost guaranteed that they also love the setting (they may of course have different ideas about it, just like we do here). The corporate entity that is GW wants money and only "cares" about the game, setting and you to the degree that it keeps you spending , so they're always going to push for what they think will make the most money. Mostly they will be focused on the present business year, but with at least some thought towards sustainability, so they "care" about not ruining the game/setting in the sense that they don't want to scare you off, unless they'e pretty sure it will attract an equal or greater amount of paying customers (whether this state of affairs is good or bad depends on your view of capitalism and hence, is probably beyond the scope of the thread).

As a customer and hobbyist I think you need to understand this in order to be happy and fulfilled in your hobby life (and being happy might mean doing something else wih your time and money, of course). So it means asking yourself some (potentially tough) questions and drawing the necessary conclusions.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the new lore at all, but rather than rage against the dying of the light I've chosen to ignore it (to my mind, that's pretty much the only thing I can do in order to preserve the version of the setting that I personally love). I don't like the hovertanks or new dreads, so I don't buy them (I have no illusions that this will cause GW to drop them, but neither will my raging about them). I don't like most of the Primaris stuff, but I do like the improved proportions and some of the design cues, so I mix and match with bits and accept a few trade-offs (such as the ankle bulbs) for what I consider an overall improved aesthetic.

Gamewise, I think it's swings and roundabouts and always has been (gripes about the state of the game go back to at least 2nd edition and on the flipside some things have actually improved; if you don't presonally think so, well, 2nd edition is right there), so I decide on an edition-to-edition basis what to do. So far I enjoy 11th, but I'm completely ready to go back to a houseruled 4th edition if 11th (or 12th, or 13th...) becomes untenable for me. Is this ideal? No, but the ideal game (not to mention the ideal game state) does not exist and certainly not within a 3-year cycle, codex drip format, so picking the "least bad" option is always going to be the way, realistically speaking. 

Today, some of the mainstays of what I consider to be 40K goes away (or at least they move to Legends, signalling that they're probably going away within 3 years). Ok, I kinda expected that to happen at some point, because no product is kept around forever*, especially not in the business model GW operates by. So what do I do? Well, my tactical marines already are Intercessors (they just look a lot better), so I might just use them as that; lorewise they'll stay tacticals of course and gamewise I just don't really care - I'll use them because of what they represent, not because of the specific details of the rules (althought I might gripe about these from time to time, I am a Warhammer player after all...).
If I felt differently, I'd probably go back to an earlier edition and start looking for likeminded people, as the alternative is to be sad and angry forever (which, admittedly, is very 40K but I personally find it exhausting and unproductive) and at the end of the day, I'm beholden to myself, not to GW or the latest iteration of the game.

"But what if I can only play in tournaments or with people that will only accept 100% official tournament rules and models and I love the old miniatures and hate primaris and new rules and lore, but can't or won't ever play anything but the newest version of the game?!?" I hear you cry. Well, sucks to be you, I guess - but honestly, it likely did anyway, because that really doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your time, energy and money.
I know this sounds a bit flippant, but the point is "do what makes you happy and don't tether your hobby enjoyment to following GW's every whim, if you hate most of what they do" and I only say it because I want you to be happy. It takes a little effort, but you can totally do your own thing and I all but guarantee that there are other people out there who like the same things about 40K that you do**, so start looking for them.



*Sometimes I find it helps to consider what other products or product lines you have invested in that has been around for a similar amount of time. It might not feel great but it gives a sense of perspective that I think is sometimes lost in these discussions.
**If there genuinely aren't, you might want to reevaluate if you actually want to interact with others about 40K at all. Just noodling around with your own minis and lore is perfectly acceptable too, after all.

[Griefbringer]

8 hours ago, The Lost Son said:

There's a few reasons both in and out of universe for the predator (and most marine tanks) sharing hulls. 

 

Firstly STC, Games Workshop's second greatest cost saving initiative.

Much like the original Titanicus doubling sprues and inventing the heresy to justify it the standard template construction allowed for a single sprue to be cut in plastic and then much cheaper metal moulds to be used for new variants. All Imperial vehicles followed this pattern. 

 

Actually, the original WH40K Predator design from the late 1980's was essentially a plastic upgrade sprue for the existing Rhino plastic sprues, so not entirely a trivial investment. See here for a picture (notice the very rounded turret design):

 

http://www.solegends.com/citcat1991a/cat1991ap028predator-01.htm

 

That said, to make most of it, it was available to both space marine and imperial guard forces - as were most of the plastic and metal vehicles at the time, except walkers (IG got the Sentinels, while marines had dreadnoughts). The epic rules introduced more IG-only vehicles, but these were for long only available in that scale - WH40K scale versions for these only started coming out in the mid-90's, starting with the Leman Russ.

 

As for producing metal add-on parts for the plastic WH40K vehicles, that also starts to appear in the mid-90's, first with Razorback, followed by Whirlwind, various IG vehicles (LR Demolisher, Hellhound, Griffon) and eventually the two predator variants.

 

Coincidentally, in Epic scale the idea of metal add-on bits for plastic kits was introduced earlier, with all sorts of metal options for plastic Warlord titans available separately from 1990 onwards. Later on, a whole chaos Banelord titan plastic/metal kit was released:

 

http://www.solegends.com/citcat1993/cat1993p495-00.htm