About the letter to GW

And you missed the point as well

The idea isn't for them to follow exactly what's in the letter and build just that into a codex. The letter is ideas for them to use as they build a codex for us. We didn't even suggest any traits or strategems and those are where a lot of the power lies in the current codex books.

Rhameil wrote:

The idea isn't for them to follow exactly what's in the letter and build just that into a codex. The letter is ideas for them to use as they build a codex for us. We didn't even suggest any traits or strategems and those are where a lot of the power lies in the current codex books.

You have far too much common sense to be posting on here...expect this to go right over their heads

If i can use another games army as a comparison Privateer Press´s Hordes Circle Orboros was said to be one of the strongest armies out there, but also the army that had the steepest learning curve.
That meant that while you could get into first place with Circle Orboros (and quite a few did) to do it you would have to play it smart as it was a very unforgiving army that punished mistakes very hard.

If i could place a wish for what the DE would be, they should be like Circle Orboros, in that if you play them just right and smart, you are a potential tier 2 or 1 army, that if underestimated by the opponent will be able to table him or her in 3 rounds or so.
However as before they are a very unforgiving army, and if you don´t use the right tactics and synergies or just charge forward you will be tabled within the first few rounds.
In short I don´t mind an army that takes some skills to play in order to win.

Mppqlmd wrote:

GW is not a pizza delivery service, where you send a letter saying "I want a pepperoni", then you end up regretting it because you forgot to ask for extra-cheese.

In the Indices meta, DE were powerful, but incredibly boring and repetitive to play (only 3-4 valid units). The letter is pointing that out.
But it makes no sense to compare Deathguard/Astra Militarum/CSM/SM with Dark Eldar. Every single Index army (except maybe orks...) looks dumb and UP when comparing to a codex-army. We can only assume that, when we get a codex, we'll be around the codex general level of power.


The letter is not about power-oriented demands. It's GW's job to assure that factions are equally powerful and, while they are not always good at that, it's not our job to make sure they succeed.
The letter thus isn't about externa balance. It's about internal balance. It's about the fact that 15% of our units outshine severely the other 85%. It's about the fact that, to succeed in the game, we need to play the same 3 units over and over again.


Also, we indeed aimed to sound as reasonnable as possible. We can't dictate anything to these guys, and they are not going to go "Ah, let's do everything the letter says, and nothing else". They are, AT BEST, going to take it as suggestions, casting away what they don't like and MAYBE taking some ideas from it. So the power-level of what we ask is irrelevant, as we are only giving them ideas to make the army more flavored and fluffy.


I'm not trying to prove you wrong, i sympathize with your feeling that we might be disappointed again (we all have that fear around here...), but there is only so much you can do with a simple letter : suggestions. Fun, fluffy suggestions. Asking for power-level changes is pointless.

I would add to that, that from a business standpoint, it would make sense to make as many of the units useful.
I don´t know what kind of molds GW uses but i suspect they aren´t cheap.
So having to spend a lot of casting of new molds for units nobody really buys, is a sure fire way to loose money.

So in that way having as many of our units useful in a battle, will ensure that more DE players buy more miniatures.

Just b.c they change stats/points (and THATS GOOD) doesnt mean the Stratagems arnt good either......

Quote :

I would add to that, that from a business standpoint, it would make sense to make as many of the units useful.
I don´t know what kind of molds GW uses but i suspect they aren´t cheap.

Actually, from a marketing viewpoint, it's more interesting very few models viable... and change them every edition.

- 5th edition, wyches are the crack, people buy lots of wyches
- 6th-7th edition, reavers become crazy good, wyches are abysmal => people buy lots of those, and never touch wyches again
- 8th edition, reavers become useless, ravagers and RWJF become crazy good => people have to rebuy a ton of models AGAIN
- Repeat until nausea

By forcing people to completly rethink their entire collection (untill the own 6 copy of every unit in the catalog), you increase sales more than with a "balanced" state where you could be playing with 1-3 copies of every unit.

Spam is what makes GW prosper.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Quote :

I would add to that, that from a business standpoint, it would make sense to make as many of the units useful.
I don´t know what kind of molds GW uses but i suspect they aren´t cheap.

Actually, from a marketing viewpoint, it's more interesting very few models viable... and change them every edition.

- 5th edition, wyches are the crack, people buy lots of wyches
- 6th-7th edition, reavers become crazy good, wyches are abysmal => people buy lots of those, and never touch wyches again
- 8th edition, reavers become useless, ravagers and RWJF become crazy good => people have to rebuy a ton of models AGAIN
- Repeat until nausea

By forcing people to completly rethink their entire collection (untill the own 6 copy of every unit in the catalog), you increase sales more than with a "balanced" state where you could be playing with 1-3 copies of every unit.

Spam is what makes GW prosper.

Yes, rethinking entire collections is a good business strategy, but if many of the units in your army SUCK and only a few spam lists will do, you will still end up with loads of models gathering dust on the shelves because nobody is buying them.

That´s why i mentioned that a more "balanced" codex/alot of good units will get people to pick up alot of more models.
I would refer to the guide that Thor wrote on Dakka dakka back in 5th edition where he mentioned there where 3 ways of playing Dark Eldar.
Webway portal, mech or vehicle spam (if memory serves).
Well each of those ways required their own units in order to successfully play that way, meaning you had to buy several different units in order to fill up the gabs.

If 8th edition does the same offering different ways to play the Dark Eldar (and winning with them) it would also mean that more models would be sold, rather then if it was just 1 or 2 units you should spam if you wanted to have any chance of winning.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Actually, from a marketing viewpoint, it's more interesting very few models viable... and change them every edition.

- 5th edition, wyches are the crack, people buy lots of wyches
- 6th-7th edition, reavers become crazy good, wyches are abysmal => people buy lots of those, and never touch wyches again
- 8th edition, reavers become useless, ravagers and RWJF become crazy good => people have to rebuy a ton of models AGAIN
- Repeat until nausea

By forcing people to completly rethink their entire collection (untill the own 6 copy of every unit in the catalog), you increase sales more than with a "balanced" state where you could be playing with 1-3 copies of every unit.

Spam is what makes GW prosper.

Maybe.

That approach takes a very long view, in that it expects a player to be actively involved and buying stuff over the course of a decade or more. It also relies on keeping players frustrated and dissatisfied, because most of their codex sucks and they have to spam units. That also keeps them from experimenting with different army builds, so their game experience may get repetitive.

Intentionally keeping players frustrated and dissatisfied is not a good way to keep them buying your product for 10+ years.

Maybe. It still is what they have been up to lately

And i completly agree with you : their recent sales politics are not a good way to make the franchise prosper.