... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
So basically a force organization chart? They did that, and the fan base bitched. So in order to cater to the people who disliked the FOC and to sell the massive kits coming out, they've pretty much thrown that to the wayside. And if the fan base operates historically, they will again complain about a new FOC method. My recommendation is play an older system where those checks and balances WERE in place.
So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:
No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.
I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.
Well, what did you expect? It's such a woolly question. What is the defining metric for 'better'? Everyone's definition of 'better' is different. It doesn't take intelligence to realise such a thread is doomed to failure. Much like any popular forum, there are polarising viewpoints who probably will find it hard to come to a common middle ground where GW is concerned.
Anyway, the value in the thread is not whether the OP's question can be answered (hint: it can't) but rather more as a discussion on what the different criteria people consider to be important.
filbert wrote: Well, what did you expect? It's such a woolly question. What is the defining metric for 'better'? Everyone's definition of 'better' is different. It doesn't take intelligence to realise such a thread is doomed to failure. Much like any popular forum, there are polarising viewpoints who probably will find it hard to come to a common middle ground where GW is concerned.
Anyway, the value in the thread is not whether the OP's question can be answered (hint: it can't) but rather more as a discussion on what the different criteria people consider to be important.
Which I'm fine and dandy with but in my honest to god opinion even that is doomed to failure as people will still be focused on their own view and will rarely (if ever) take the points of the other in this kind of discussion. I for sure can't really remember that much of (for the sake of pointing someone I've disagreed strongly here) Kaiyanwang's criteria and ultimately we won't really know much because for each thing we say we most likely forget about another half a dozen.
Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.
Herzlos wrote: 3rded. 40k was an infantry game when I started it. The few tanks in the game were serious threats
Probably the reason so many 40k players seem to have moved to Bolt Action. The game era/background isn't the same but the gameplay is so much more like 40k was and should have become.
We all 'know' the next edition of 40k won't go back to that style of game, with the amount of huge kits GW now peddle. If anything it will be more 'unbound' gameplay with use of all the best stuff you can buy from any faction in a huge mix.
Its one of the reasons why I'm eyeing Antares, konflikt 47 and Warpath Firefight. It may take a while before I make an investment in those, however; they are all in their early stages.
Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.
I would like to see dropzone commander's way of army composition, where each faction has a subtle difference in how their forces are distributed. PHR, for example, can take a command unit in their heavy battlegroup, scourge can take scouts in their special battle group, etc.
Its one of the reasons why I liked the idea of alternate FoCs that appeared for a short time after 6th. But then they got replaced by formations and unbound, which threw list building and strategic army composition out of the window in favor of "buy these models and you get BUFFS!" and "You want to spam cheese units? GO NUTS!"
Herzlos wrote: 3rded. 40k was an infantry game when I started it. The few tanks in the game were serious threats
Probably the reason so many 40k players seem to have moved to Bolt Action. The game era/background isn't the same but the gameplay is so much more like 40k was and should have become.
We all 'know' the next edition of 40k won't go back to that style of game, with the amount of huge kits GW now peddle. If anything it will be more 'unbound' gameplay with use of all the best stuff you can buy from any faction in a huge mix.
Its one of the reasons why I'm eyeing Antares, konflikt 47 and Warpath Firefight.
It may take a while before I make an investment in those, however; they are both in their early stages.
Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.
I would like to see dropzone commander's way of army composition, where each faction has a subtle difference in how their forces are distributed. PHR, for example, can take a command unit in their heavy battlegroup, scourge can take scouts in their special battle group, etc.
Its one of the reasons why I liked the idea of alternate FoCs that appeared for a short time after 6th. But then they got replaced by formations and unbound, which threw list building and strategic army composition out of the window in favor of "buy these models and you get BUFFS!" and "You want to spam cheese units? GO NUTS!"
Can highly recommend Antares. It plays very well and is a good little game. More and more people I know have moved across to it.
Mangod wrote: ... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.
It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.
Honestly I think that each Army should probably have its own FOC which it kind of does if you think about core formations that almost every faction has. The problem is all the other take these things and get a huge buff formations but if you got rid of those extra formations and then the decurion style detachments, and updated the primary formation that is like the FOC to also allow even the standard 3 Elite 3 fast attack 3 heavy support it might balance things out a little bit and still allow for some variety per faction.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
This does not fix Phil Kelly and Jeremy Vetock undercosting Eldar and Tau stuff because are their armies.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
This does not fix Phil Kelly and Jeremy Vetock undercosting Eldar and Tau stuff because are their armies.
And that is why should not be allowed to write those codices / have control over a project.
Lord Kragan wrote: So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:
No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.
I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.
I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago
Mangod wrote: ... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.
It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
But GW have already screwed up on it, it's easy to go from a system that has restrictions to one that doesn't, it's difficult to go backwards though.
With the tearing down of restrictions 40k the game became less a game and more an excuse for lining up your bestest toys opposite some else's bestest toys.
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
RoninXiC wrote: But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.
Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.
Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.
(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.
Well of course if the points are fethed everything's fethed, but in a world where the points are better balanced I still vote for % over FoC.
Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.
(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)
0-1 is basically the same as a FoC, placing limits based on number you can take rather than % of your force (it could be 0-1 or 0-2 or 1+ or 1-3 or whatever, I just used 0-1 as an example).
Also don't get your knickers too twisted, I said "0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah", I thought it was obvious what "per blah blah" meant but perhaps not, it could mean "0-1 per 500pts" or "0-1 per 1000pts" or "0-1 per HQ choice" or "0-1 per tactical squad".
It's just a way to stop people taking armies that are purely made up of something that's supposed to be uncommon. Combined with a % system it might stop people taking multiples of something that is rare but actually cheap in terms of points.
RoninXiC wrote: But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.
*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.
Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.
Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.
(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)
"Absolute" 0-1 can have problems, but as stated, is enough to put such limits for every FOC (is used). Imagine a FOC like in 6th; doubled when you go above 1999 points. A 0-1 per FOC limit would change to a more reasonable 0-2. Same, selecting X as a HQ choice would make an Elite a Troop, but 0-1 per every other troop. It worked for Longbeards in WHFB Dwarves, could work for stuff like the Windriders. I think is in the interests of everybody to avoid Spamhammer 40k.
*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.
Some page ago, you defended my criticism to AoS sating that it will improve in next editions.
Do you think Bretonnia and tomb Kings will be there next editions?
Some of the new releases like TSGC and DW have gotten me to up my spending limits.
I am liking their new approach to the online community with the live streams and spoilers.
The White dwarf has also come on leaps and bounds this year, I actually started buying it again.
I very rarely make GW impulse buys however, and that is pretty strange for me as I buy a lot of other stuff on a whim when im out and about.
I guess the price is one of the reasons for this, they are still pretty steep, and the fact that GW never has much of the range in stock and even Warhammer World becomes just a glorified order point at times.
I do not actually play 40k that much, I am more of a collector and modeller so the rules discrepancies do not really affect me that much, nor am I that interested in balance, Its not essential for my enjoyment of the few games I do actually play. I play BB mostly and much of that game is far from balanced and pretty random at times.
It would be nice to see them make some sort of changes to the rules, a lot of people do not seem to like them, but then again I am pretty sure that no matter what they do, GW will never please some people, as is evident in this thread and others like it.
All in all for me, they have come on leaps and bounds, I just hope they keep it up, there are not many other games or genres that interest me and it would be a shame for 40k to go down the pan like WFB did. I do not think they would be stupid enough to kill the cash cow mind you.
I am looking forward to seeing what they release in the new year, if 2016 is anything to go by there will be more cool releases on the cards, with the exception of them bringing back loyalist primarchs ofc ...
RoninXiC wrote: But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.
*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.
*Rolls eyes* As person who wants to start these armies, I feel a bit sad. Since I have a hard time buying the models that I am wanting to forge my narrative.
Lord Kragan wrote: So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:
No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.
I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.
I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago
Mangod wrote: ... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.
It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
But GW have already screwed up on it, it's easy to go from a system that has restrictions to one that doesn't, it's difficult to go backwards though.
With the tearing down of restrictions 40k the game became less a game and more an excuse for lining up your bestest toys opposite some else's bestest toys.
So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.
Lord Kragan wrote: So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:
No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.
I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.
I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago
Well, I think what's been resolved is that, yes, GW has improved, but not significantly enough for many people to change their view.
From any sort of objective or consensus based view, GW has improved in several areas, with the General's Handbook for AoS, the new 30k plastics, bundle deals, social media presence and the new boxed games. It's treaded water in some others (prices of new releases, rules/balance for 40k). Very little, if anything, has gotten worse. A lot of the comments from people seeing no improvement are focused on one area of being a miniatures company, for example the 40k rules. Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement.
I think we can agree that, yes, GW has gotten better, and based on this thread, we can also agree that many people don't understand what "getting better" means.
Lord Kragan wrote: So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:
No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.
I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.
I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago
Well, I think what's been resolved is that, yes, GW has improved, but not significantly enough for many people to change their view.
From any sort of objective or consensus based view, GW has improved in several areas, with the General's Handbook for AoS, the new 30k plastics, bundle deals, social media presence and the new boxed games. It's treaded water in some others (prices of new releases, rules/balance for 40k). Very little, if anything, has gotten worse. A lot of the comments from people seeing no improvement are focused on one area of being a miniatures company, for example the 40k rules. Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement.
I think we can agree that, yes, GW has gotten better, and based on this thread, we can also agree that many people don't understand what "getting better" means.
You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.
Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.
Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.
(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)
"Absolute" 0-1 can have problems, but as stated, is enough to put such limits for every FOC (is used). Imagine a FOC like in 6th; doubled when you go above 1999 points. A 0-1 per FOC limit would change to a more reasonable 0-2.
Same, selecting X as a HQ choice would make an Elite a Troop, but 0-1 per every other troop. It worked for Longbeards in WHFB Dwarves, could work for stuff like the Windriders.
I think is in the interests of everybody to avoid Spamhammer 40k.
*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.
Some page ago, you defended my criticism to AoS sating that it will improve in next editions.
Do you think Bretonnia and tomb Kings will be there next editions?
Now this depends on what you define as "being there".
If you mean rules wise the current model range is there to stay simple as that. If a guy had the models he will be able to play them as the time goes on. GW has assured as much, the updates to GHB's and the editions would be points and rules. Model availability would only be affected upwards (ie: we ain't losing anything else in terms of rules). You just need to grab the warscrolls compendium (and tomb kings is still available in their web, but you need to goggle it for some reason, despite the link directing to their page). Now if they back on their word is another matter, and I'd dare not speak about the issue because I don't have clairvoyance.
If you mean will they available for sell: no and yes. As we know them they are gone forever, because all this big shuffle of names they did was to Copyright the hell out of their ranges (fyreslayers' name being the most glaring example). Now, here's where the devil lies: it is possible we see see them "return" by the hand of spiritual successors whenever the forces of the realm of light. Allarielle had her model removed only to return with a brand new model and a raging beetle. Tyrion is stated to be worshiped by some groups of human that consist mainly of noble knights and warriors. So the chance of seeing bretonians as questing knights in service of an elven deity (only that they actually know they are doing so) is within the realm of possibility. Not a certainity (because if so I'd be a diviner and host a 3-to-5 a.m. program on a gakky tv channel) but a likelihood.
Tomb kings are a bit thorny matter. Nagash is stated to have cohorts of liches under his service, de-facto rulers on par with the vampires in terms of authority, and said vampires follow a very Nekhekaran aesthethic, which may be the norm there. They may conform themselves with just a few models to complement the existing skelletons with a tomb king-esque aesthetic or just make a whole range or nothing at all. Mayhaps too? I'm less sure about this one.
herjan. Get them from ebay and/or perry miniatures. I like citadel miniatures by and large and prefer them to others (matter of taste, like the aesthetics, nothing "objective" about it) but I say that the official bretonnians' metal models was a bit... bad barring a few exceptions.
Just Tony wrote: So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.
Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.
Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.
The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: ....Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement....
And to others it does, thus the thread has proven that no we can't agree that GW have gotten better
Wayniac wrote: You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.
The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:
Harriticus wrote: I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.
*snip*
Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop
The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.
What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.
And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.
Wayniac wrote: You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.
The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:
Harriticus wrote: I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.
*snip*
Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop
The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.
What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.
And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.
This guy gets it, GW is doing better in 40k, most recent box deals, tac squad rhino and DA upgrade sprew for 50 bucks?!?! Hell yes good sir, is a great example.
AoS, charging 50 bucks for a set of chaos warriors who's cast is how old now, but charging that much just because the box says AoS, really gakky.
Like i said, they stopped digging down, but they still have a big ass hole to climb out of.
Polonius wrote: ....Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement....
And to others it does, thus the thread has proven that no we can't agree that GW have gotten better
Deciding that your own taste is the best way to measure the improvement a company is borderline narcissistic. By digging in on your own view of what improvement does just shows a limited ability to see a bigger picture. And the big picture is basically: while 40k/AoS still be around, with a global player base, either under GW or under another party. That's the game of marbles here. And the future of GW's games looks far better now than 12 months ago.
That doesn't diminish the complaints or dissatisfaction of people for whom GW is failing. People are pissed at the best run companies, and their complaints are still valid. there are plenty of good reasons to walk away from GW. It's also fair to say that the rules are just as bad, and since rules are important to you, you cannot see any real value in their improvement. That's totally fine.
But think of the GW community like a big old house, with people living on every floor and basement. Last winter, the furnace didn't work very well, and about 3/4 of the people were too cold. This winter, after some work, only 1/2 of the people are too cold. If you're in the at 1/2, the improvement for the 1/4 that got heat might be of little value to you, and that's fair. But that doesn't change the fact that the furnace did improve! things got better, just not for you.
People wonder why we're in a "post truth" culture now. It's not just the media. It's the idea that each person's perceptions, experiences, and opinions, are not just totally valid as subjective input, but have the same value in the same ways as facts and objective reality. And that idea is why a simple question generated two months of discussion: because people want to deny an objective reality that conflicts with their subjective experience. There's room for both, but you can't just throw one out for the other.
Well, a friend of mine wants to dial back the clock and use 5th edition rules for 40k with a few "house rules" to allow for the newer units (already a rule of no formations).
It will be a neat experiment to see if it works out ok.
That is back in the day when fliers are treated like fancy skimmers.
We shall see how it goes.
We are also getting our friend's Squat army dusted off for use.
I see many things that are good about 7th edition especially how Monstrous Creatures are handled so it will be interesting to see how the unholy blend works out.
I would say the biggest issue is how points vs capability of units / formations and the way they can be attached to each other makes for some truly broken combinations. I understand the want to be able to put together your dream mix of units but the "zoo" mix of units is getting silly.
I am not at peace with the idea of say a Deathwatch squad would include a bike with a bunch of foot sloggers... it just makes no sense.
I guess the true test of GW getting "better" is really where is your focus.
Good looking models to build and paint? Sure they are getting better.
Some good entry level games so you do not need a full army is great too.
Low cost has not been addressed much BUT the army starter boxes are a great start.
I want my 40k rules to get better but these have not seen much love there.
AOS people seem to be warming to so maybe that could be considered an improvement.
Wayniac wrote: You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.
The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:
Harriticus wrote: I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.
*snip*
Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop
The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.
What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.
And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.
This guy gets it, GW is doing better in 40k, most recent box deals, tac squad rhino and DA upgrade sprew for 50 bucks?!?! Hell yes good sir, is a great example.
AoS, charging 50 bucks for a set of chaos warriors who's cast is how old now, but charging that much just because the box says AoS, really gakky.
Like i said, they stopped digging down, but they still have a big ass hole to climb out of.
Dude, you've gone and offered the worse choice for your argument and shows how little overall you have looked on any matter you spoke in these last subjects we've coincided. So please STOP.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors. That means you're paying for chaos warriors 2.19 euros per warrior as opposed to 2.58 euros per warrior. Chaos knights have gone down from 5.4 (27 euros for 5 knights) euros to 4.5 euros per chaos knightl or 5.4/4.6 (cannot remember if they were 27 or 23 now) euros per chaos raider on horse.. In fact this has been a staple of AoS' old models that weren't put on a bus: they either stayed stable or went on to become better deals as they improved the ratio fo model/currency each box offered.
Buy two boxes of chaos warriors and compare them to two boxes of marines: both cases (and a bit of modelling) would allow you to play the game. The marines' would barely let you make it to the 500pts (you'd need to convert one to a captain and that means you can't combat squad one of them and are constricted to properly tool out the captain). THe chaos warriors? You'd get 3 solid units that would let you fulfill the battleline requirements fo the 1k and 2k points limits, net you a chaos lord and a sorcerer lord (maybe do a bit of green stuff on the latter) all while clocking in at 800 pts. They both cost the same in terms of cash.
Which one does look better? Last time I checked 500 was lower than 800.
That is not to say there's "overpriced" boxes in AoS (or that outside the re-release of IoB and the starter there's "cheap" sets, by which I mean each player would be able to play 1000pts while paying 50 euros or less) " but this is kind of evened out by the SC! (I mean, Ironjaw goregruntas are expensive but look like a steal if you buy them on SC! IJ) and certainly not the crappy examples you're providing. Please look properly before talking.
Just Tony wrote: So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.
Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.
Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.
The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.
We can have aspects of 2nd, but they seem to be grabbing the worst aspects of 2nd, of which there were many.
You know why I like the FOC? Because it's based in logic. You know why the US didn't commit 100,000 Green Berets to the invasion of Afghanistan? Because we don't HAVE that many. Eliminating the FOC and allowing armies to cherry pick only their most elite stuff in unrealistic proportions is not good for any game, and I can't see many gamers being happy about that. Kind of like this End Times era scenario I'm borrowing from pre-crash warseer: "There are only 7 Steam Tanks in existence in the Empire, now face 12." And percentages didn't alleviate the issue. Do you remember the requirement in 2nd? 25% or more on Squads. What counted as Squads? Everything on foot. THAT kind of BS is why they came up with the FOC and classified the units in their respective categories. Granted, that all has gone to hell on a fork truck but the principle was there. THAT is what I want back, and since I'm well aware GW doesn't backpedal unless it's to the shittiest parts of their rulesets, I simply play 3rd Ed. 40K or 6th Ed. WFB when I want a game.
Now BFG getting rereleased will probably be the thing that gets me whole hog in buying new GW stuff, depending on what they release. Past that, I'm only getting the stuff I need to wrap up a few armies unless they make it cost efficient to start another army. If not, ebay.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
Actually, it is a price increase.
Before you were paying 0.39 for a model
Now you are paying 0.46 for a model
12/31 = 0.39
16/35 = 0.46
Oh... god.
That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.
Let me put your equations in words:
m is models. e is euros
a) 12 models for 31 euros turns into 0.39 models for an euro 12m/31e= 0.39m/1e
b) 16 models for 35 euros turns into 0.46 models for an euro 16m/35e= 0,46m/1e
It's not an increase. And I'm not going to apologize if I sond patronizing. This is literally 4th-5th grade maths and I doubt you are a 10 year old.
feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros. How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
Actually, it is a price increase. Before you were paying 0.39 for a model Now you are paying 0.46 for a model
12/31 = 0.39 16/35 = 0.46
Oh... god.
That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.
Yeah I know, I got it the wrong way around. Its actually 2.19 from 2.58. Which is about 39 cents less. Which is a minor improvement.
Just Tony wrote: So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.
Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.
Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.
The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.
We can have aspects of 2nd, but they seem to be grabbing the worst aspects of 2nd, of which there were many.
You know why I like the FOC? Because it's based in logic. You know why the US didn't commit 100,000 Green Berets to the invasion of Afghanistan? Because we don't HAVE that many. Eliminating the FOC and allowing armies to cherry pick only their most elite stuff in unrealistic proportions is not good for any game, and I can't see many gamers being happy about that. Kind of like this End Times era scenario I'm borrowing from pre-crash warseer: "There are only 7 Steam Tanks in existence in the Empire, now face 12." And percentages didn't alleviate the issue. Do you remember the requirement in 2nd? 25% or more on Squads. What counted as Squads? Everything on foot. THAT kind of BS is why they came up with the FOC and classified the units in their respective categories. Granted, that all has gone to hell on a fork truck but the principle was there. THAT is what I want back, and since I'm well aware GW doesn't backpedal unless it's to the shittiest parts of their rulesets, I simply play 3rd Ed. 40K or 6th Ed. WFB when I want a game.
Now BFG getting rereleased will probably be the thing that gets me whole hog in buying new GW stuff, depending on what they release. Past that, I'm only getting the stuff I need to wrap up a few armies unless they make it cost efficient to start another army. If not, ebay.
You're getting too hung up on previous editions and I think it's blinding you to how these systems could work. It's like you're seeing why the system didn't work in 2nd edition and instead of figuring out a way of walking around that you're tripping over it and falling flat on your face.
I'm suggesting we implement a % not, NOT SPECIFICALLY 2ND EDITION'S SYSTEM!!!~!~!111~!!!!!
There's only 7 Steam tanks in existence? Cool, give the Steam Tank a special rule that you can't have more than 7 of them It doesn't invalidate a % system for everything else. Also WHFB did have a rule about not being able to take more than 2 duplicates of a Rare (or 4 in a 3000+ point army).
Squads were a bad measure of the army's "core"? Fine, don't use squads. Just because 2nd edition had a silly way of assigning percentages doesn't mean the % system is bad.
You can have a % system that looks almost identical to a FoC system if you want, the key difference being the FoC system is based on "slots" while a % system is based on actual on table value. That to me is why the FoC system is junk, because you can fill "slots" while either minimising or maximising the on table value (eg. taking a couple of cheap throw away squads as your troops requirement). A FoC system also makes units in the same class compete for "slots". Tyranid armies have this problem where you might have a unit in one of the specialist slots that's cheap, but you don't take it because you have to save that slot for a more valuable unit when I think a better option is just to sum up the actual VALUE of the units within that specialist role, not simply the number of them you took.
Alright man, calm down. The fact of the matter is GW is still charging a lot for a model that really old, the cost of manufacturing has more then been made up, and the options associated with the models are not even comparable.
I use the Chaos warriors as an example because I thinks its insane to charge that much for them, as pointed out, even with one extra sprue. My point is not the price to model count, its price to model quality. Those old models are dated as hell and are awful compared to their new products, yeah they give you more, but more of a low grade quality is not always a good thing.
Which still plays into my point, GW has made some head way, but still needs to make improvements. AoS is an example of bad priceing, Varanguard, 100 bucks for 3. New space marine deals, 50 bucsk for a transport, tac squad, and upgrade sprue, good deal!
Like i said, pump your breaks guy, Im not even lashing out at you are trying to attack you, and your jumping on people telling them to shut up and stop talking its not going to help you get your point across. We are talking about plastic dolls and toy soldiers here, not priceless collectibles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Doesn't Kings of War use a percentage system? Seems to be working.
Edit : Ah no, it doesn't, except for the allies part. I must have been thinking of WHFB, which was...adequate.
IIRC 9th age does a % system, i think it was like your leaders are capped at 25% of your army total, would LOVE to see a system like that come into 40k but thats a topic for another thread.
feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.
You're right, a regiment should be 4.68 euros.
Also, you mad bro? Did my miscalculation offend you? I already corrected it, and if you hadn't spent the time melting down over it, you would have seen the corrections. You may wish a take a few deep breaths before a mod comes in and starts handing out spankings.
8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).
It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).
It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.
THats something i see a lot of companies doing with a system that just needs some working down on it, they just gun it and try all over again.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
Actually, it is a price increase.
Before you were paying 0.39 for a model
Now you are paying 0.46 for a model
12/31 = 0.39
16/35 = 0.46
Oh... god.
That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.
Yeah I know, I got it the wrong way around.
Its actually 2.19 from 2.58. Which is about 39 cents less.
Which is a minor improvement.
It's a sixth cheaper than before(and yeah, messed the math, when I typed the calculator I placed the price of the marauders next to them :* my mistake) . AND they are more expensive than the old counterparts (20pts more per ten models).
And it's a better deal than what he was praising: two boxes of the marines net you 460pts (assuming you're taking fully geared squads, spend 10pts of gear on each rhino and give a combi-weapon+mb to the sarge). If you make one an HQ you'd lose a heavy weapon and would only reach, assuming you go combi-weapon, AA, power-fist on the captain: 576pts. Not a legal amount and you're already spending quite a bit on gear.
The chaos warriors two boxes will net you 580pts and two spare models for Leaders, which can easily bust the points' count to 820pts.
Still they are misers but it's a tiny improvement. Certainly not gakky and worse which was what he was preaching.
feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.
You're right, a regiment should be 4.68 euros.
Also, you mad bro? Did my miscalculation offend you? I already corrected it, and if you hadn't spent the time melting down over it, you would have seen the corrections.
You may wish a take a few deep breaths before a mod comes in and starts handing out spankings.
Math done wrong (by others, not me, I'm a huge hipocryte to that will just go and correct the wrong math) triggers me greatly specially when it's something so blatant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: Alright man, calm down. The fact of the matter is GW is still charging a lot for a model that really old, the cost of manufacturing has more then been made up, and the options associated with the models are not even comparable.
I use the Chaos warriors as an example because I thinks its insane to charge that much for them, as pointed out, even with one extra sprue. My point is not the price to model count, its price to model quality. Those old models are dated as hell and are awful compared to their new products, yeah they give you more, but more of a low grade quality is not always a good thing.
Which still plays into my point, GW has made some head way, but still needs to make improvements. AoS is an example of bad priceing, Varanguard, 100 bucks for 3. New space marine deals, 50 bucsk for a transport, tac squad, and upgrade sprue, good deal!
Like i said, pump your breaks guy, Im not even lashing out at you are trying to attack you, and your jumping on people telling them to shut up and stop talking its not going to help you get your point across. We are talking about plastic dolls and toy soldiers here, not priceless collectibles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Doesn't Kings of War use a percentage system? Seems to be working.
Edit : Ah no, it doesn't, except for the allies part. I must have been thinking of WHFB, which was...adequate.
IIRC 9th age does a % system, i think it was like your leaders are capped at 25% of your army total, would LOVE to see a system like that come into 40k but thats a topic for another thread.
Again, look at the pricing and points: the WoC box is 288 points versus the 210 that a reasoanably kitted marine squad on rhino costs.. And at this point your argument isn't being played because you're conflating a sales deal with a regular box. AND YOU GOT THE PRICE WRONG. Assuming you're speaking of canadian dollars, the DA set is 65 bucks, not 50. The closest it gets in dollars is in american currency which is 55 bucks, not 50, versus the 40 dollars of the chaos box. No matter how you try to spin it with quality but there's no way that 7.2pts per american dollar are a worse deal than 3.81 points per american dollar. The difference in quality is NOWHERE big enough to qualify a 37% of additional content at 23-27% less price as a bad deal.
You providing bad examples, getting the data so grossly wrong, or ignoring part of others' points, doesn't get your point across either as I clearly said that there's bad pricing (like the gore-gruntas. Oh god) but not on the direction you pointed.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).
It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.
The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.
One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.
The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?
I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.
We cant take point cost into account for AoS vs 40k, they are totally different systems 288 points of WoC come with no upgrade cost since those are free. But still you cant use their point cost as a argument point because its apples to oranges. On top of that, not all points are created equal since there is model imbalance, but thats not even part of the argument and would require another thread.
Sorry 55, i just rounded down to 50 on my account.
Listen i said it before ill say it again, no one is right, and no one is wrong when it comes to the price of models for if they are to much or just right.
Your reasoning for why they are priced good, in a points argument, sure it is a valid one, is it one i agree with? No, i think its silly but thats ok because we value different things about them
For me i determine weather a model is worth its priced based on how much entertainment i can get out of them. This is from build, paint, and play. For me, Chaos warriors are not priced well because they are a bore to assemble, they are a bore to paint since they have once stance, and mono posed arms save for slight angle variations and massive mold gaps and this has not changed for a long time, compared to other GW models that can have many poses.
So for a modeling and painting perspective at my current level of painting, i dont think they are worth it, on the table are they good? yes, but i dont take that into account because you could have a god aweful model that is amazing on the table and has a great point to cost ratio.
So you base the value off points, thats fine, but i base mine off the building and painting aspect of it, and from a building and painting aspect, no they are not worth it in my opinion.
Same issue happens with the varanguard but for the opposite reasons, great models, really cool poses and lots of detail, but their price is way off point at 100 bucks for 3 guys.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).
It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.
The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.
One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.
The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?
I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.
same thing is happening in 40k now, where pricing is based on their power. Look at the SM formations that get you free transports, transports arnt that great, but it moves product which is all that matters in GWs eyes, part of the hole they dug.
IMO i dont think every formation should be balanced, i do think each formation should excel at what its designed to do. Which, in many cases it does, but to the extent of, it over powers every other formation which leads to the cheese armies. Which leads to GW's big problem is the scrapping of a system rather then tweeking it, and GW never admitting they screwed up. If GW put their rules out for free, and did extensive play testing and did bi-monthly revisions to their free rules, i think things would be a lot smoother game play wise. But GW's hubris prevents that.
Backspacehacker wrote: We cant take point cost into account for AoS vs 40k, they are totally different systems 288 points of WoC come with no upgrade cost since those are free. But still you cant use their point cost as a argument point because its apples to oranges. On top of that, not all points are created equal since there is model imbalance, but thats not even part of the argument and would require another thread.
Sorry 55, i just rounded down to 50 on my account.
Listen i said it before ill say it again, no one is right, and no one is wrong when it comes to the price of models for if they are to much or just right.
Your reasoning for why they are priced good, in a points argument, sure it is a valid one, is it one i agree with? No, i think its silly but thats ok because we value different things about them
For me i determine weather a model is worth its priced based on how much entertainment i can get out of them. This is from build, paint, and play. For me, Chaos warriors are not priced well because they are a bore to assemble, they are a bore to paint since they have once stance, and mono posed arms save for slight angle variations and massive mold gaps and this has not changed for a long time, compared to other GW models that can have many poses.
So for a modeling and painting perspective at my current level of painting, i dont think they are worth it, on the table are they good? yes, but i dont take that into account because you could have a god aweful model that is amazing on the table and has a great point to cost ratio.
So you base the value off points, thats fine, but i base mine off the building and painting aspect of it, and from a building and painting aspect, no they are not worth it in my opinion.
Same issue happens with the varanguard but for the opposite reasons, great models, really cool poses and lots of detail, but their price is way off point at 100 bucks for 3 guys.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).
It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.
The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.
One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.
The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?
I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.
same thing is happening in 40k now, where pricing is based on their power. Look at the SM formations that get you free transports, transports arnt that great, but it moves product which is all that matters in GWs eyes, part of the hole they dug.
IMO i dont think every formation should be balanced, i do think each formation should excel at what its designed to do. Which, in many cases it does, but to the extent of, it over powers every other formation which leads to the cheese armies. Which leads to GW's big problem is the scrapping of a system rather then tweeking it, and GW never admitting they screwed up. If GW put their rules out for free, and did extensive play testing and did bi-monthly revisions to their free rules, i think things would be a lot smoother game play wise. But GW's hubris prevents that.
Except it's not apples to oranges. Wether it's 40k or AoS you play based on a point's limit (unless you wanna play Open play-style in AoS, but IMO that's something more experienced players should do because they'll have a more solid gauge on what would make a fun game). If you want to have a nice game you'll need to be close to it. As far as I know, both AoS and 40k have 1000pts levels where you need a HQ and two "troops". Even assuming I had to pay upgrades, that would only make the WoC's set better priced because I'd not need to buy as many to properly play. The marines at best are getting 210-220pts (including upgrades but keeping it sane) out of that box, all while paying more. Both are basic troops and they are actually part of the golden standard (MEQ and liberator-statlines) by which units are valued.
Here I think lies a crux of the issue:
You're basing your view as a collectionist and hobbyist. From there, yeah, I give it to you, it's not worth it, almost none of GW's models truly are if you just want to do hobbyism of models for a reasonable price (then we start factoring tastes and which level of distance and cost we'd be willing to diverge from the original product, which makes GW's pricing model still alive... sort of) .
But as a player that sticks to rules (and some of the rules are use our goddam models or else I'll blow your balls and kick you out of my shops- which is too a silly logic but I get its point, plus I like how they look) I'll find more use on a solid ruleset and points value. Because I'll spend more time playing them than assembling and painting (and trust me, the latter is for the benefit of the models) and I think that's a rule of thumb for more people. So for me the chaos warriors being more pricy (and stll cost efficient and good in the table top) ppm-wise and still having more models is a larger improvement over having a whose only purpose is to properly price that over-priced box 40k players call rhino transport (I mean, 31 euros for a 35pts mode, thats bad pricing if I've seen one) and will still be average-to-mediocre in the battlefield.
Still I think AoS has good pricing things (and some serious offenders already pointed out- Varanguard has an attrocious pts/e ratio, despite being a solid choice). Namely IoB's re-release. I mean, yeah, it's the same set 8th edition had... only that this time the elves set is legal while in 8th edition wasn't (the gryphon wasn't allowed, too little core, long-story short, a huge ass trap. I know because when I wanted to enter 8th ed and was interested in this set I did some reseach) and both sides are closer to the 1k points than their previous incarnations. Point in case: skaven just need 27 euros (plague-claw/warp-lightining) to reach 1k points, the elven set needs 24 euros (the chariot) to do so. So for less than 60 euros per army you can make it to 1k games with both armies (and have solid lists). IoB needed you to almost fork up to three digits on either side.
I agree with you on AoS, some of the pricing has remained pretty good, for example, their getting started boxes? holy crap those things are a solid buy. Any time i see some one reach for the mannfrad model, i just slowly guide their hand back to the shelf, shake my head, and hand them then skeleton getting started army box.
But also, there are some really bad offenders, IE varanguard, Love the models so much, infact got some that im probably never going to field, but just really wanna paint up...
As an aside im gonna buy the plague guy, the one on the dead horse. then do 4 of them as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse kinda thing. Or one for each chaos god not sure yet, need to find a tzeenchy one.
But the Priceing for AoS is kinda all over the place. 40k is getting better, still.
They stopped digging, the aforementioned box sets i think a great value.
Backspacehacker wrote: I agree with you on AoS, some of the pricing has remained pretty good, for example, their getting started boxes? holy crap those things are a solid buy. Any time i see some one reach for the mannfrad model, i just slowly guide their hand back to the shelf, shake my head, and hand them then skeleton getting started army box.
But also, there are some really bad offenders, IE varanguard, Love the models so much, infact got some that im probably never going to field, but just really wanna paint up...
As an aside im gonna buy the plague guy, the one on the dead horse. then do 4 of them as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse kinda thing. Or one for each chaos god not sure yet, need to find a tzeenchy one.
But the Priceing for AoS is kinda all over the place. 40k is getting better, still.
They stopped digging, the aforementioned box sets i think a great value.
I'd pay for seeing that. Wait for january, maybe the Arcanites have a solid stuff.
It's really all over the place when you consider everything, be it gaming or hobbywise. But I actually think they are heading a better path gaming wise ( I mean, archaon costs the same amount of cash a knight does and he's worth twice, gordrakk costs the same amount of a wraitknight and costs 2.5 times more). Hobbywise, it's still a total mase.
Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.
Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.
Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.
If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?
Gimgamgoo wrote: Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.
Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.
Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.
If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?
New Year New Army?
New Year, Same Gak.
I remember those... we had four dudes ask for the sylvaneth box days before it even came into the web and around seven doing the same for the deathwatch box, plus 3 for the mecanichum one. What I'm telling you are conversations that happened on tuesday with a release happening on saturday. I seriously don't know how many in my LGS did pre-pre-order the boxes but I can bet my ass a boatload did so across the globe ( I mean, DW and Mechanicum were extremely good deals by GW standards).
filbert wrote: It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Totally. I mean, they clearly didn't sell that well (except maybe the mechanicus/DW) because they haven't re-released them (which they'd have done like with spire of dawn). But we don't know for sure so that's especulation.
GW has gotten better in the last year.. but after about loosing everything in the process.. The last few years seem more like a social experiment verses
trying to make games that people want to buy.. Me personally collected a number of armies and bought about every issue of White dwarf for years..
Then they changed the formatting of the magazine and I couldn't see the value in continuing a subscription or even pick up random issues in the local
game store. Now they have returned to the old style of magazine, but it hasn't improved my feelings for the company as a whole.. just waiting for them
to go bad again it seems.
It goes to say, they did the same type of thing with Age of Sigmar, Completely changing the game after a great surge of interest from the End Times.
The game caused the community to be and continues to be broken, 9th Age, Kings of War and others now stand beside Age of Sigmar at game stores.
They are trying to fix the game with the Generals Handbook and others, but most has left it for other things and would take a considerable amount to
bring those people back.
Then 40k is a bloated mess with I'm guessing around forty codex and expansion books to contend with.The new edition rumored to be coming this year
will make or break the company. There is to many competitors out there for them to make the same mistakes they made with AoS.
So have GW improved in the last year.. Yes.. but it was from a steep dive down and just now righting the ship enough to even out..
filbert wrote:It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Nice to see someone think like I do. I called it artificial hype. Making it look like GW products are in demand and selling out "all of a sudden".
It still seems to be going on. While I don't have any proof, but just reading the comments on Dakka that some stores can only carry a max of 2 or so boxes just staggers my mind. What is true, what is not true, I don't know anymore. But seeing how stores still get only 2 of this or a few of that and not what they ordered just seems to affirm my guess.
filbert wrote:It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Nice to see someone think like I do. I called it artificial hype. Making it look like GW products are in demand and selling out "all of a sudden".
It still seems to be going on. While I don't have any proof, but just reading the comments on Dakka that some stores can only carry a max of 2 or so boxes just staggers my mind. What is true, what is not true, I don't know anymore. But seeing how stores still get only 2 of this or a few of that and not what they ordered just seems to affirm my guess.
Well, the email was from 2 days ago. I clicked on the link when I received the email.
It seems GW was sending out emails to get me to buy sold out stuff. Fair enough if stuff sells out, but for it to be "no longer available" just sucks.
When I was into GW stuff at its best, I had a huge catalogue of everything they ever made, bits and figures. I'd just use the catalogue code to buy what I wanted from them. Never any stock issues, even on really obscure metal parts.
Now they don't even want me to buy a huge army of the latest releases. Anyway, I guess I'll hold onto the cash that was going to be an impulse buy and hang on and see how 40k rules develop (or buy me some other figures to use with Rogue Stars)
A friend of mine just pre-ordered the Trukk Boyz set for his wife - who has been playingkicking ass in my GorkaMorka game.
For him, the reasoning is simple - he is a nerd.
She is not.
For the first time she is interested in one of the nerd hobbies - so for him that box is totally worth it!
Looking at the Trukk on the GW site... ... ... damn, that is a nice model. And a perfect fit for GorkMorka.
I will likely be commissioned to paint the models.
The Auld Grump - by 'kicking ass' what I mean is that she has been 9 wins, and 1 loss in the campaign, beating out everyone else... all because she loved Fury Road.... And that one loss was against a monster in the weekly 'event' game - she decided that ramming the sixty feet of tentacles and teeth, then charging, was the way to handle it. Both of her top Bosses were killed - but if she had done even two more points of damage then she would have won before it had a chance to strike back....
A Town Called Malus wrote: I hope that Trukk is going to get a full War Rig conversion, Grump, complete with Warboyz clinging to the side wearing white warpaint
One of the models for my good lady's mob is holding a can of silver spray paint... and she has a habit of yelling 'Witness Me!' while playing....
Megan (my good lady and confirmed nerd-girl), Julie (Jon's nerd-girl wife) and Trang (not a gamer, not a nerd-girl, but is really kicking our butts) are the folks that overruled me when I was starting to set up a Mordheim campaign...
Fury Road is a chick flick? Who knew? And all are married ladies. (Molly (the Younger) is neither a nerd-girl nor married - but is our resident RPG combat-wombat - is just playing for the chaos.)
Jake, Trang's husband, is not able to play in this campaign, scheduling for grownups sucks.... The orks that Trang currently uses were his - from the old 2nd edition 40K box....
These will be the first 40K models that I have painted in... six years? (My own mob is from Kromlech, as is my good lady wife's. For the record, my good lady is also kicking my butt - GorkaMorka is as much a game about risk management as it is about resource management - and I am much better at resource management than risk management. As a result, I avoid going too fast.... At heart, I am not an ork. )
The Auld Grump - the first new model that he got her was a new Boss for her mob - armed with a power klaw, which we ignore, since there are no power klaws in GorkaMorka - we treat it as a choppa instead.
*EDIT* Oh, yeah... the topic... The point that I forgot to make was that even having a modest savings on buying both the Trukk and the Boyz together was enough to tip a buyer from just looking to getting one in the hopes that it will help get his wife into gaming. Also. Trang is quite possibly an Ork, herself.... (She shares my birth date - I sometimes call her my evil twin. For her part, she also calls herself my evil twin....)
*EDIT 2* I was wondering if I had been to hard on GW, then looked at the 'Deff Dread' in the Start Collecting box and realized 'not all the time, no... 'cause [/i]that[/i] does look like crap... though the Boyz look okay.)
Gimgamgoo wrote: Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.
Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.
Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.
If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?
Seriously? That's what you're going to complain about?
They're just getting rid of Christmas stock. Given how they run multiple web stores, it's probably very sensible idea for them to create a single email that goes to everyone (all are still available on the Aus web store). And in reality it looks far better for them to offer you 4 things and have 3 out of stock than to send you an email offering only the space wolves.... plus you can still browse the damn web store and find all the other Start Collecting bundles...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.
Both of those arquments fit also to % system just as well...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.
Both of those arquments fit also to % system just as well...
I'd say "not quite just as well". A % system isn't perfect and as I said originally I'd probably combine it with separate restrictions (and maybe allowances), but a FoC system is trash by design.
Also a % system doesn't suffer if not all choices in a slot are equal, if one choice is worth less you're allowed to take more of it, compared to a FoC system where even if a choice is worth 50pts it takes up a slot the same as another choice that might be 200pts. And a % system isn't as dependent on army choice and points, in a FoC the maximum allowance hits an MSU army more than a deathstar army.
For someone who cried so much about me daring to mention "0-1" you're weirdly attached to a FoC system which basically amounts to "1-2 of this, 0-2 of that, 2-6 of this, 0-3 of that and 0-3 of that and 0-1 of that other thing".
Gimgamgoo wrote: Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.
Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.
Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.
If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?
Seriously? That's what you're going to complain about?
They're just getting rid of Christmas stock. Given how they run multiple web stores, it's probably very sensible idea for them to create a single email that goes to everyone (all are still available on the Aus web store). And in reality it looks far better for them to offer you 4 things and have 3 out of stock than to send you an email offering only the space wolves.... plus you can still browse the damn web store and find all the other Start Collecting bundles...
So you're really saying that because the item I wanted wasn't in stock, I should have just browsed and bought something else because I'd been suckered into following a link to something they no longer offer. Wow. You must be a) easy to please and b) an ideal GW customer.
I get your point about mass emails, but if it had said 'last chance to buy christmas box sets' I would have understood, but on the 1st of January to say 'new year new army' made it feel like a new deal or place to start.
Mybe you just missed out and other people brought them before you. Unfortunatly we will never know if the stock ran out before or after the email. I think games workshop has got better its far from perfect but what is
Mangod wrote: ... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?
Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?
Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.
It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.
Yes because it's so much fun when you have to fill your army with crap you don't want to play, don't like the models and ... right.
I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.
This does not fix Phil Kelly and Jeremy Vetock undercosting Eldar and Tau stuff because are their armies.
Yes, and who wrote Necrons and Space Marines... because those are clearly just as bad.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
Didn't caught this on the moment but nevertheless, your argument is laughable. A kid ain't going to start wargaming (or build up its armies) with his pocket money. I began wargaming at age fifteen and I didn't do so with my pocked money, nor any of the friends of my age did so. I waited for christmass or a celebration and then get the cash from my gifts to buy as much as I could. And this is something kids do that I've seen all over the place, not just in wargaming: wait for a big haul and then buy it. It's something tied in to not having a steady income.
That or just be a spoiled kid that gets to buy everything he wants because parents have more cash than care.
Pocketmoney was (and is) for day to day stuff, not, assuming perry miniatures prices, sacrificing 3 weeks of instant gratification for a couple of days of having to spend days doing assembling and painting (I mean, I've met more kids who asked GW employees to assemble the minis for them than the opposite) using materials that would well cost another week of pocket money and instant gratification, all for having a small part of what I need (because even with PM I'd be nowhere close to build a fully fledged bretonnian army with just one box).
I think we can agree that, yes, GW has gotten better, and based on this thread, we can also agree that many people don't understand what "getting better" means.
You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.
Actually, I think there's a very simple proof that they do not understand what "getting better" means.
Basically, it's supposed to be the opposite of "getting worse".
I'm sure all the GW haters will agree that the following list of actions would consist in GW "getting worse":
- Releasing less standalone games
- Releasing less miniature ranges
- Leaving AoS to rot without any new rules
- Keeping the pile of 2nd Ed miniatures as high as ever
- Not offering any 40% off bundles
etc.
If you don't agree that these are examples of "getting worse", then maybe you have a very different opinion.
If you do agree, that means that GW has indeed "gotten better" even if you don't give a gak that they did.
The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.
So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.
I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.
Didn't caught this on the moment but nevertheless, your argument is laughable. A kid ain't going to start wargaming (or build up its armies) with his pocket money. I began wargaming at age fifteen and I didn't do so with my pocked money, nor any of the friends of my age did so. I waited for christmass or a celebration and then get the cash from my gifts to buy as much as I could. And this is something kids do that I've seen all over the place, not just in wargaming: wait for a big haul and then buy it. It's something tied in to not having a steady income.
That or just be a spoiled kid that gets to buy everything he wants because parents have more cash than care.
Pocketmoney was (and is) for day to day stuff, not, assuming perry miniatures prices, sacrificing 3 weeks of instant gratification for a couple of days of having to spend days doing assembling and painting (I mean, I've met more kids who asked GW employees to assemble the minis for them than the opposite) using materials that would well cost another week of pocket money and instant gratification, all for having a small part of what I need (because even with PM I'd be nowhere close to build a fully fledged bretonnian army with just one box).
Your argument is "laughable", growing up I bought a blister pack with my pocket money each week and would slowly build up my army. The reason this is no longer viable is because GW raised its prices to absurd levels.
filbert wrote: It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Totally. I mean, they clearly didn't sell that well (except maybe the mechanicus/DW) because they haven't re-released them (which they'd have done like with spire of dawn). But we don't know for sure so that's especulation.
Really ???
In a market where every single buyer complains about the price, you think that a vast majority are going to pass an offer to get produce at 30% off before any resale rebate ?
I have way too many Eldar and I could have bought one of these boxes if there was one for Eldar.
That's how much we're looking for a bargain.
Hell, people are buying entire armies of chinese recasts at 40-50% off when the resin just can't be as good as the plastic (glue, warp, risk of paying customs, ...), so there clearly is a large market of bargain hunters.
filbert wrote: It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Totally. I mean, they clearly didn't sell that well (except maybe the mechanicus/DW) because they haven't re-released them (which they'd have done like with spire of dawn). But we don't know for sure so that's especulation.
Really ???
In a market where every single buyer complains about the price, you think that a vast majority are going to pass an offer to get produce at 30% off before any resale rebate ?
I have way too many Eldar and I could have bought one of these boxes if there was one for Eldar.
That's how much we're looking for a bargain.
Hell, people are buying entire armies of chinese recasts at 40-50% off when the resin just can't be as good as the plastic (glue, warp, risk of paying customs, ...), so there clearly is a large market of bargain hunters.
Mind you, they sold out well, but I doubt they sold as fast and well as the Gee-dubs guys wanted. IoB got a re-release and it was sold out literally almost seconds after release (I wanted to buy, went on 11:20 to buy it and found there were none already, it sold that fast).
Didn't caught this on the moment but nevertheless, your argument is laughable. A kid ain't going to start wargaming (or build up its armies) with his pocket money. I began wargaming at age fifteen and I didn't do so with my pocked money, nor any of the friends of my age did so. I waited for christmass or a celebration and then get the cash from my gifts to buy as much as I could. And this is something kids do that I've seen all over the place, not just in wargaming: wait for a big haul and then buy it. It's something tied in to not having a steady income.
That or just be a spoiled kid that gets to buy everything he wants because parents have more cash than care.
Pocketmoney was (and is) for day to day stuff, not, assuming perry miniatures prices, sacrificing 3 weeks of instant gratification for a couple of days of having to spend days doing assembling and painting (I mean, I've met more kids who asked GW employees to assemble the minis for them than the opposite) using materials that would well cost another week of pocket money and instant gratification, all for having a small part of what I need (because even with PM I'd be nowhere close to build a fully fledged bretonnian army with just one box).
Well... I bought and built up my Citadel figures buying a blister weekly with my pocket money.
Not everyone is quite as young and spoilt as you came across in that post. Just remember that as less and less people afford the hobby, there's less potential gamers in the future.
Well... I bought and built up my Citadel figures buying a blister weekly with my pocket money.
Not everyone is quite as young and spoilt as you came across in that post. Just remember that as less and less people afford the hobby, there's less potential gamers in the future.
This. My first army was Dwarves and I built them up by saving pocket money for blister packs.
filbert wrote: It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.
Totally. I mean, they clearly didn't sell that well (except maybe the mechanicus/DW) because they haven't re-released them (which they'd have done like with spire of dawn). But we don't know for sure so that's especulation.
Really ???
In a market where every single buyer complains about the price, you think that a vast majority are going to pass an offer to get produce at 30% off before any resale rebate ?
I have way too many Eldar and I could have bought one of these boxes if there was one for Eldar.
That's how much we're looking for a bargain.
Hell, people are buying entire armies of chinese recasts at 40-50% off when the resin just can't be as good as the plastic (glue, warp, risk of paying customs, ...), so there clearly is a large market of bargain hunters.
Mind you, they sold out well, but I doubt they sold as fast and well as the Gee-dubs guys wanted. IoB got a re-release and it was sold out literally almost seconds after release (I wanted to buy, went on 11:20 to buy it and found there were none already, it sold that fast).
The Battleforces were created specifically as christmas bundles. Its only an insidious 'artificial scarcity' ploy if you consider every other company doing christmas sales 'artificial scarcity' as well.
GW wants to sell as few of them as possible, and get back to selling full price bundles again. This is a particular problem for many GW sets as many of the battleforces appeal to veteran players. Many other games get around that by having a portion of the 'value' of a starter set tied up in a one-of miniature (eg, Warmachine bundles come with a Warlock that you have no use for a second one), but GW doesn't do that.
What is evident is that GW has issues anticipating demand. Selling out is better than having stuff sitting on shelves, but selling out in days/hours is also bad. I have a feeling that's purely to do with inventory management and just-in-time production, but they're not quite getting the numbers.
Didn't caught this on the moment but nevertheless, your argument is laughable. A kid ain't going to start wargaming (or build up its armies) with his pocket money. I began wargaming at age fifteen and I didn't do so with my pocked money, nor any of the friends of my age did so. I waited for christmass or a celebration and then get the cash from my gifts to buy as much as I could. And this is something kids do that I've seen all over the place, not just in wargaming: wait for a big haul and then buy it. It's something tied in to not having a steady income.
That or just be a spoiled kid that gets to buy everything he wants because parents have more cash than care.
Pocketmoney was (and is) for day to day stuff, not, assuming perry miniatures prices, sacrificing 3 weeks of instant gratification for a couple of days of having to spend days doing assembling and painting (I mean, I've met more kids who asked GW employees to assemble the minis for them than the opposite) using materials that would well cost another week of pocket money and instant gratification, all for having a small part of what I need (because even with PM I'd be nowhere close to build a fully fledged bretonnian army with just one box).
Well... I bought and built up my Citadel figures buying a blister weekly with my pocket money.
Not everyone is quite as young and spoilt as you came across in that post. Just remember that as less and less people afford the hobby, there's less potential gamers in the future.
Then again, country differences I guess. Where I come from, pocket money is described as minimal and you generally wait for big hauls and go big.
Now, what are we going to resort to namecalling? Whow, so it turns out that, when combining three festivities' worth of money, I can buy a handful boxes makes me a spoilt brat, apparently. nevermind that I did not have pocket money until I hit the university, because I was not given allowances! (Which is not really a thing where I come from, minors usually don't have their own pocket money). Nevermind that the argument was that children (so that kind of throws out of the equation the young part) generally speaking won't sacrifice a month worth of going to the cinema/hanging with friedns/or other things for a single box that will just be a minor part of the whole picture. A blister ain't a whole box and you know it, and just by work of inflation the prices weren't the same 30 years ago.
I remember that this is actually more affordable. You'd need three boxes (93 eur on old price) versus the two boxes now (70 eur on current price) to have a functional force of WoC in AoS (not quite 1k pts but surely a bit smaller game just to get a handle of it). Your argument is totally lopsided because the evidence is showing that the prices go down in terms of content needed. To further your argument of "it will stretch the goal futher away" yeah, it will stretch it a bit, and take one out of the way. If I need three goals to start and suddenly they move the goalposts of two a bit further away while removing the third I'll take less to reach the end.
Pocket money was always pretty low in the UK too, but then so were GW prices. I'd easily be able to buy a blister every weekend or so (maybe £5 pocket money, £3 blister, and some sweets).
That'd be a lot harder to achieve now because (a) in-store blisters are all plastic and start at about £9, and (b) there's a lot less blisters as it's all moved to larger boxes.
To be fair, very few gaming companies have genuinely pocket money blisters now (Reaper and Warlord being 2 of them). Perry blisters are fairly rare, and a troop box at £20 is not in pocket money range, despite it being about £0.50 per mini.
Even as a 30 year old with a good wage, there's very little in a GW store under my impulse-buy radar. My FLGS is dangerous for my wallet largely due to the Reaper shelves and bargain bin.
Backspacehacker wrote: Can we all agree GW needs to pump their breaks on single blister pack models? I mean, $20.00 USD for a single, often times, mono pose no option model.
What is not fair is go beyond that for any kind of character, like ahriman or kharn did, or the magos dominus. 13-15 (18-20 dollars) euros should be acceptable for what is essentially a model you'll only buy once per army, so long he's well detailed and has a options. The monopose can be given a pass IMO.
Backspacehacker wrote: Can we all agree GW needs to pump their breaks on single blister pack models? I mean, $20.00 USD for a single, often times, mono pose no option model.
What is not fair is go beyond that for any kind of character, like ahriman or kharn did, or the magos dominus. 13-15 (18-20 dollars) euros should be acceptable for what is essentially a model you'll only buy once per army, so long he's well detailed and has a options. The monopose can be given a pass IMO.
Well I really bring forward this complaint with the most recent issue of it.
That ugly ass apoth they sold that was from forge world was 40 bucks USD it's just getting down right ridiculous. I could see 20 bucks max but more then that is just silly, again, my opinion that is.
RE: Clampacks, for special characters it makes sense to have the mono-pose. But they go overboard, in that many characters in general are monopose kits when they should be multi-part kits. A "Space Marine Chaplain" kit for example should come with a regular body, a terminator body, and a jump pack as an example, with a variety of weapon options (bike would have to be left out, but should be easy to get a bike and add the Chaplain-specific torso to it).
The biggest thing for me has always been how they package weapon options. It is absolutely beyond stupid to have a box that has 1 of each weapon, and then only a single type of another (looking at you, Tactical Squad/Chaos Squad), when you have the option for a variety. Either give the entire gamut of options OR restrict them, by which I mean instead of being able to take up to 2 of each kind of weapon, you could only get 1 of each (because that's what comes in the kit). Especially with the removal of the bitz service, this is one of the most annoying things when you need to buy an entire second box, or scour ebay/bitz sellers and pay a marked-up price for a single special weapon because GW can't put enough choices in the box. It infuriates me, also on things like tau Crisis Suits, which was fine back in the original days as IIRC you couldn't take two of the same (it was twin-linked) so you mixed weapons, but now when you want like all plasma or something, well you don't get enough plasma rifles in a single Crisis box to give all of them plasma rifles (unless that changed with the new kit, which I doubt), you have to buy a second or even third kit or extra commanders or whatever just to get the options to kit out one freaking squad the way you want. It's ridiculous.
Well... I bought and built up my Citadel figures buying a blister weekly with my pocket money.
I did the same.
I had an interesting conversation on this topic recently with one of my Wife's friends. I keep a couple of display cabinets in my living room with some of my toys in them which she noticed and said that her son had expressed an interest in 40k so she had a look in the GW in town. She was so put off by the prices that she refused to get her son anything and she didn't even want any of my 40k stuff that is currently moldering away in the garage in case it would encourage him. She can certainly afford GW's prices, she went Skiing in France over Christmas, but the 'sticker shock' was obviously too much for her.
Well... I bought and built up my Citadel figures buying a blister weekly with my pocket money.
I did the same.
I had an interesting conversation on this topic recently with one of my Wife's friends. I keep a couple of display cabinets in my living room with some of my toys in them which she noticed and said that her son had expressed an interest in 40k so she had a look in the GW in town. She was so put off by the prices that she refused to get her son anything and she didn't even want any of my 40k stuff that is currently moldering away in the garage in case it would encourage him. She can certainly afford GW's prices, she went Skiing in France over Christmas, but the 'sticker shock' was obviously too much for her.
Yeah. The school club I ran, (UK. School years 7 to 11), had about 3 kids per year group, so around 15 regulars. As year 11's left, new year 7's replaced them. For the last 5 years, new year 7 kids have turned up, got excited, gone home to check out prices, then come back apologising they won't be joining as they'll never afford their own stuff. And this is from families that send these kids on school ski trips etc. Last year the last 3 kids in year 11 left and the club is no more. It is only down to price. (And before anyone asks, yes, I did have a couple of painted armies I'd done for people to use, but you know people, they want their own stuff).
I'm not a GW hater by any means. But I worry for the overall hobby as I know GW (especially 40k) was the entrance for a lot of people. Now they're gone, what'll happen to the hobby? Consoles will no doubt be blamed, but from the evidence I see, it's GW reducing a market in size with price.
I see there's some 3ml paint sets in the latest WD. Yep, 3ml. I mean wtf? That's how much you get dried up around the rim of those crappy pots. I know it's GW trying to bring in a cheaper pocket money item, but jeez, at least give them something for their money.
Here's one solid reason they are NOT getting better:
Apparently, Fall of Cadia is 136 pages and will cost ~$50 USD. Normal GW price right? But AOS is coming out with Battletome: Disciples of Tzeentch. It's also 136 pages and is supposed to cost like around $25USD (probably closer to $30), but for the same number of pages it's going to be less money, because reasons.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Ouch, I have not felt agreement to a statement like that so strongly in a while.
It is only an "impression" but rings as a hard truth to me.
Wayniac wrote: Here's one solid reason they are NOT getting better:
Apparently, Fall of Cadia is 136 pages and will cost ~$50 USD. Normal GW price right? But AOS is coming out with Battletome: Disciples of Tzeentch. It's also 136 pages and is supposed to cost like around $25USD (probably closer to $30), but for the same number of pages it's going to be less money, because reasons.
WTF?
40K doesn't need to be sold, people buy no matter what. Age of Sigmar on the other hand needs to be sold, so hence why it's cheaper. I am sure, if Age of Sigmar was as popular as 40K and sold, it would be the same price as 40K.
*edit*
By sold I mean GW trying to sell the game and push it. Thing is what boggles me is why is GW doing these "changes" if they can get away with the prices they are charging? Smart man would say "stop doing what is pushing your customers away not keep doing it and doing it even more."
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.
Hey! Finecast was a great idea!
And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For someone who cried so much about me daring to mention "0-1" you're weirdly attached to a FoC system which basically amounts to "1-2 of this, 0-2 of that, 2-6 of this, 0-3 of that and 0-3 of that and 0-1 of that other thing".
You do know FOC's aren't limited to 1 don't you?
0-1 is 1 maximum.
I have no problem fitting 6 HS to my orks though...Was less easy to fit 2 units of swordmasters back in 5th ed of FB when they had 0-X restrictions though. Whether 500 pts game or 3000 pts game 1 swordmaster unit was all you got.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: I think GW are running quite a few experiments, and the battleforces may be one of them.
I would be very surprised if they don't reprint them and if those don't become a permanent part of their product line once more.
These christmas deals have appeared before as well. None of those have become permanent part as of yet so...
Backspacehacker wrote: Can we all agree GW needs to pump their breaks on single blister pack models? I mean, $20.00 USD for a single, often times, mono pose no option model.
What is not fair is go beyond that for any kind of character, like ahriman or kharn did, or the magos dominus. 13-15 (18-20 dollars) euros should be acceptable for what is essentially a model you'll only buy once per army, so long he's well detailed and has a options. The monopose can be given a pass IMO.
Problem IS that you buy once per army. Plastic moulds cost. Therefore the more you sell cheaper you can sell it.
Character prices are always going to be ridiculously priced as long as they are plastic.
If mould costs X and you expect to sell 1000 of them you can obviously price it cheaper than if you expect to sell only 100 of them.
Plastic might be nice material to play around with but it's expensive solution for what you don't sell in bulks. You are never going to be selling as much character models as basic troops. Even less so special characters that can take only 1 so multiples will require some converting so even less need...Who needs multiple eldrads?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: I had an interesting conversation on this topic recently with one of my Wife's friends. I keep a couple of display cabinets in my living room with some of my toys in them which she noticed and said that her son had expressed an interest in 40k so she had a look in the GW in town. She was so put off by the prices that she refused to get her son anything and she didn't even want any of my 40k stuff that is currently moldering away in the garage in case it would encourage him. She can certainly afford GW's prices, she went Skiing in France over Christmas, but the 'sticker shock' was obviously too much for her.
Yes the problems can be problem even if you can afford them. Because while YES you could afford to buy them does it provide worth equal to what you pay? Money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere?
I go to Japan pretty much yearly. Spend couple thousands each time. One time more like 10k(albeit that was mega long 2 month holiday). If I didn't go or reduced space I could basically buy army a month(wouldn't get them PAINTED though...Backlog would grow ridiculously).
But value I get in return is not enough to justify. If they were priced more reasonably I wouldn't have problems buying models. For example deathwatch force would be nice and I would need some more space marines. Also chaos would be groovy.
But they have went past price/value so I'm left with 2nd hand outside the occasional good deals GW makes(many which alas go OOP by the time I would have time/money...Damn limited editions). But due to time issues those need to be unpainted(don't have time to strip paint) which makes that less effective so haven't bought much lately.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For someone who cried so much about me daring to mention "0-1" you're weirdly attached to a FoC system which basically amounts to "1-2 of this, 0-2 of that, 2-6 of this, 0-3 of that and 0-3 of that and 0-1 of that other thing".
You do know FOC's aren't limited to 1 don't you?
Well that's the current system at least, it's been the case only since 7th edition I believe?
Allowing multiple FOCs like we currently have has it's own range of problems and I still think it's a sucky way of dealing with getting people have some organisation to their army.
I guess it's okay if you simply want the illusion of an organisation system, but I think the hallmark of 7th edition is lack of organisation, I can appreciate some people might like that, but to me it's not a great way to construct a game. Great way to construct a miniature buying system though, which is what GW wants and what 40k has become more than a game.
0-1 is 1 maximum.
I have no problem fitting 6 HS to my orks though...Was less easy to fit 2 units of swordmasters back in 5th ed of FB when they had 0-X restrictions though. Whether 500 pts game or 3000 pts game 1 swordmaster unit was all you got.
And I already addressed that in literally the first post I made that you quoted by saying...
You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.
Herzlos wrote: Pocket money was always pretty low in the UK too, but then so were GW prices. I'd easily be able to buy a blister every weekend or so (maybe £5 pocket money, £3 blister, and some sweets).
Exactly. Back then you could buy a blister with (part) of your weekend allowance.
Evidently newer players could not experience the joy of getting your not-really-hard-earned on a Saturday and running to the FLAGS on the afternoon to get 2-3 more metal guys.
Yeah. The school club I ran, (UK. School years 7 to 11), had about 3 kids per year group, so around 15 regulars. As year 11's left, new year 7's replaced them. For the last 5 years, new year 7 kids have turned up, got excited, gone home to check out prices, then come back apologising they won't be joining as they'll never afford their own stuff. And this is from families that send these kids on school ski trips etc. Last year the last 3 kids in year 11 left and the club is no more. It is only down to price. (And before anyone asks, yes, I did have a couple of painted armies I'd done for people to use, but you know people, they want their own stuff).
I'm not a GW hater by any means. But I worry for the overall hobby as I know GW (especially 40k) was the entrance for a lot of people. Now they're gone, what'll happen to the hobby? Consoles will no doubt be blamed, but from the evidence I see, it's GW reducing a market in size with price.
I think it'll just shift away from GW. A friend of mine runs a gaming club in a school (high school I believe) which is oversubscribed (he's got a waiting list of people wanting to join), but they don't play any GW games. The big ones seem to be Tanks! (Gale Force 9 / Battlefront), Yugio and MtG. They fit the hour long slot better and are much cheaper to get into.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.
Hey! Finecast was a great idea!
And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!
The Auld Grump
Don't forget the bendy weapons. I'll never forget that thread where a poster said a GW staffer told them Arjac Rockfist's hammer haft is meant to be curved as it was made of rope.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If there's anything GW are great at, it's turning a slight rise in costs on their end in to a massive rise in price on the customer end.
Hey don't sell them short. They're also great at turning a decrease in costs on their end into a massive price increase for the customer.
Hey! Finecast was a great idea!
And getting to fix all the bubbles and miscast parts was a bonus feature in the GW experience!
The Auld Grump
Don't forget the bendy weapons. I'll never forget that thread where a poster said a GW staffer told them Arjac Rockfist's hammer haft is meant to be curved as it was made of rope.
Honestly, I've only ever had a few Finecast which I got from a whole army deal on ebay.
Those Finecast had zero problems, no bubbles, and were straightened under slightly warm water in minutes.
That's about twice the time it took to bend metal, so not really worse.
What's more, I could reposition the models so that they're not in exactly the same pose anymore (not on all models mind you, the fire dragons were too monopose for any real changes.
I believe Finecast as a low temp resin wasn't half bad - too bad they weren't able to cast it properly.
morgoth wrote: Honestly, I've only ever had a few Finecast which I got from a whole army deal on ebay.
Those Finecast had zero problems, no bubbles, and were straightened under slightly warm water in minutes.
That's about twice the time it took to bend metal, so not really worse.
What's more, I could reposition the models so that they're not in exactly the same pose anymore (not on all models mind you, the fire dragons were too monopose for any real changes.
I believe Finecast as a low temp resin wasn't half bad - too bad they weren't able to cast it properly.
Finecast seems to be quite a hit or miss. I have bought maybe like 10 of them and worst I had was small hole in snickhs cloth. Could be even intentional ragged clothes. Either way was easy to fix.
Never had to experience one of those horror stories. Albeit helped that biggest model I ever got was the dwarf high king.
But personally apart from price never had problem with finecast models. So if there wouldn't have been so many miscasts as there seemed to have wouldn't have minded it and certainly would have made more sense for character models than plastic.
RoninXiC wrote: But balance is not imporant. AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced. FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
This is factually incorrect. The GHB is exactly "a proper attempt to balance stuff". The points costs were worked out in conjuction with top tournament organizers and players, based on several of the most used community points systems at the time. It is anything but random. Some (certainly not all) points costs are indeed imbalanced, which is why the GHB will be updated annually, again taking feedback and advice from the community collaborators. The GHB process is basically a schoolbook example of how to do points costs right.
If anything, GW need to look to what people are enjoying about AoS, and apply that to 40k in some way (but by no means an identical way).
Things I know people like about it?
Free Warscrolls. Unless you want Warscrolls Formations, you needn't buy any rules ever. And for those with tablets and that, downloading the AoS App puts every scroll literally at your finger tips.
Speaking of the App - a 40k app in a similar vein wouldn't go amiss. Make the basic unit rules free for those who want them - that way people mostly in it for the gaming experience needn't shell out on background they're not especially fussed for.
And the design of the Warscrolls....having all the necessary rules for a given unit on a single page is very convenient. Now, how well that could be translated to 40k with it's far wider array of weapons and possible combinations I dunno, but I daresay there's a way round it.
Community Interaction. Don't care what anyone else feels, I find AoS an excellent game - and that GW seem intent on listening and then incorporating feedback is the icing on the cake (for example, how summoning works in matched play, compared to open play)
For me, 40k's biggest issue right now is rules sprawl. I've been out of the loop for some time due to work commitments and an evil 4 hours daily commute. But I got in a game of Apocalypse in November. I needed four books. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Knights and Taghmata. For fielding a relative handful of models (mmm....Ordinatus.).
If they could app their way to reducing that to just taking my ipad (other tablets are available) I'd be happy with that, especially if there's a function like the AoS one where I can add all the Scrolls/Whatevs I'll be using to a single screen.
But, the AoS app still needs work, as it's not quite perfect. For me? Allow multiple instances of a single scroll to be selected, to reflect my unit size and army composition. And also, some way to log my ownership of the physical books so I can access all the content I already own on paper, electronically.
If anything, GW need to look to what people are enjoying about AoS, and apply that to 40k in some way (but by no means an identical way).
Things I know people like about it?
Free Warscrolls. Unless you want Warscrolls Formations, you needn't buy any rules ever. And for those with tablets and that, downloading the AoS App puts every scroll literally at your finger tips.
Speaking of the App - a 40k app in a similar vein wouldn't go amiss. Make the basic unit rules free for those who want them - that way people mostly in it for the gaming experience needn't shell out on background they're not especially fussed for.
And the design of the Warscrolls....having all the necessary rules for a given unit on a single page is very convenient. Now, how well that could be translated to 40k with it's far wider array of weapons and possible combinations I dunno, but I daresay there's a way round it.
Community Interaction. Don't care what anyone else feels, I find AoS an excellent game - and that GW seem intent on listening and then incorporating feedback is the icing on the cake (for example, how summoning works in matched play, compared to open play)
For me, 40k's biggest issue right now is rules sprawl. I've been out of the loop for some time due to work commitments and an evil 4 hours daily commute. But I got in a game of Apocalypse in November. I needed four books. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Knights and Taghmata. For fielding a relative handful of models (mmm....Ordinatus.).
If they could app their way to reducing that to just taking my ipad (other tablets are available) I'd be happy with that, especially if there's a function like the AoS one where I can add all the Scrolls/Whatevs I'll be using to a single screen.
But, the AoS app still needs work, as it's not quite perfect. For me? Allow multiple instances of a single scroll to be selected, to reflect my unit size and army composition. And also, some way to log my ownership of the physical books so I can access all the content I already own on paper, electronically.
Now that's a good idea. Have all the rules for the unit explained on a single page and not need to find it. Yeah, they totally need to include som electronic code for physical owners.
RoninXiC wrote: But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.
This is factually incorrect. The GHB is exactly "a proper attempt to balance stuff". The points costs were worked out in conjuction with top tournament organizers and players, based on several of the most used community points systems at the time. It is anything but random. Some (certainly not all) points costs are indeed imbalanced, which is why the GHB will be updated annually, again taking feedback and advice from the community collaborators. The GHB process is basically a schoolbook example of how to do points costs right.
Plus there's the fact that matched play also changes how to win the game. This is something that 99.9% people forget but what makes the game be won is getting more points, but killng all models still ends the match. So if you just go and make a list poorly designed for misions and whose only purpose is to kill stuff, go and slaughter the enemy but don't score a single point, you still loose. IMO that's a better system than tabling equalling a victory found in most games.
And again, I really cannot praise the AoS App, imperfect as it is.
I bought the GHB through the app, and that opened up the points values for every unit in the game (including those without models. Like Khemri).
As stuff is added, in theory the points will be added (shall find out next weekend with the Tzeentchian goodies land).
If/when points are tweaked, they'll be updated in the app as well.
It really is a nifty little tool - and following my feedback, GW are looking at a way to sort my main bugbear of allowing the registration of physical copies within the app to open up the attendant formations and other stuff.
I'd absolutely love a 40k equivalent! I mean, there's one for Bloodbowl (though you only get the very basic stuff for free, which is a pain)
Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.
Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.
Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.
So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that. Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.
Gav Thorpe's novel features (albeit briefly) an entity that could be described as Kislev Incarnate....lives in an Onion Domed Tower, was previously worshipped/attended by one of the Stormcast.
AoS remains in its infancy. I get the shift from darker fantasy to more Marvelesque is jarring, and not to everyone's tastes, but I'm enjoying it so far.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.
When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.
Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that. Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.
Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.
I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay. Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?
I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.
They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.
Araby would have been an awesome army list I think. Djinn, camel guys, war elephant? Basically haradrim in LOTR. They had an army list for Warmaster with like flying carpets and such, it was essentially Evil Aladdin.
Cathay and Nippon though I think would have been too generic (but then again Empire and Bretonnia weren't that unique either, literally Holy Roman Empire and French Arthurian), and would likely have been combined into one (think "Armies of the Far East") since they would be similar.
There was also... Tilea I think? The Not-Rome with Not-Legions that also had renaissance stuff (Lucrezzia Belladonna or whatever her name was, Not-Lucretia Borgia).
I would have loved an Araby army since in the fluff they had a large war with Bretonnia (including the evil Vizier Jafar IIRC)
Wayniac wrote: Araby would have been an awesome army list I think. Djinn, camel guys, war elephant? Basically haradrim in LOTR. They had an army list for Warmaster with like flying carpets and such, it was essentially Evil Aladdin.
Cathay and Nippon though I think would have been too generic (but then again Empire and Bretonnia weren't that unique either, literally Holy Roman Empire and French Arthurian), and would likely have been combined into one (think "Armies of the Far East") since they would be similar.
There was also... Tilea I think? The Not-Rome with Not-Legions that also had renaissance stuff (Lucrezzia Belladonna or whatever her name was, Not-Lucretia Borgia).
I would have loved an Araby army since in the fluff they had a large war with Bretonnia (including the evil Vizier Jafar IIRC)
Oh yeah, I forgot about Bretonnia and Araby war. A supplement covering that would have been nice
I think it might be possible to make distinct unit types for Cathay and Nippon. Maybe not as a full fledged army book, but perhaps as a minor list like they did for Kislev and Albion.
Nippon would have muskets (the Japanese developed firearms in the 16th century, brought over by Portuguese traders), the Cathay would have things like rocket batteries and repeating crossbows (both were used in actual china), maybe terracotta soldiers in cathay and Oni like units in Nippon. There's a lot of inspiration you can draw from Chinese and Japanese history and myth.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.
When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.
Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that. Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.
Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.
I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay. Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?
I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.
They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.
Really, the WHFB world was as open to new and interesting factions and scenarios as a creative writer wants it to be. You can have new things pop up in the middle of no where if you want, the world *literally* has world changing magic in it, with the Lizardmen space stuff (for better or worse) you could even have had things from outer space.
It was an entirely fictional world and the only area that had been explored in all that much detail was the Old World, which was only a fraction of the map.
You can't really say Cathay and Nippon were "horribly generic" because they were never explored, you could have any bloody faction you wanted come out of there, there's no reason they had to follow typical Asian tropes.
GW didn't kill WHFB because the world was stagnant (if they did they deserve a whack over the head for lack of creativity), they killed it because they thought building a new world would pull in more customers than trying to build on the existing one. Perhaps they also thought they were too close to existing fantasy worlds and wanted to create something completely different (and more copyrightable).
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
The WHFB Setting was also stagnant. We know how that turned out I liked the old world. There was cool stuff they could have developed upon. But nope, had to nuke it and turn it into surreal nordic fantasy 40k, where everything is HUGE AND FLASHY, because kids like that.
Goodbye Cathay, Nippon, Kislev (admittedly, those did get their own rules and army, but disappeared shortly after 7th ed, I think) and Araby. Hello Not-Space Marines, arse ugly slayers and terrible naming conventions.
Honestly speaking those examples are what irks me. They destroyed Cathay and Nippon!! Yes... so? They were horribly generic and Gee Dubs made it pretty clear they did never have any intent on expanding upon them. Sure, some mention here and there and that's it. Warhammer fantasy has always been about western Not!Europe and Those upstart colinies' version of fantasy. The other parts were added just for completion's sake but in truth they were just there.
I would argue they were not just "there", as the Skaven have a unit that took techniques from Nippon, and the Cathay Empire was described as engaged in a constant war with the Ogres, who are a major faction and are from the same area as Cathay.
Also, you mean to tell me that South America (Lustria) and Egypt (Settri) are part of Europe? Or that 16th century Europe (the inspiration for the Empire) never had contact with China or Japan?
I'd also argue that Cathay and Nippon were undeveloped, not generic. If Cathay, Nippon and Araby were generic as they were clearly China, Japan and Arabia, one could just as easily claim that Bretonnia, Empire, Vampire Counts and High Elves were generic, as they were clearly medieval France, 16th Century Germany, Vampires and European undead legends, and Fantasy Elves.
They could have released the minor nations as supplements, like they are doing with 40k now. There is no reason why they could not have expanded upon them, instead of blowing them up.
Interesting, apparently South America had never been colonized during the XVI-XIXth centuries. Egypt also wasn't colonized and turned into a protectorate during the XIX-XXth centuries. Next time I'll hear is that electricity was also never invented.
It had contact. And said contact was almost next to nothing and something extremely peripheric in correlation to what was going inside it. Which is what we get in fantasy, and should as they never had been the focus nor true target of the setting. I could go on but that would be a siege tower of text that I just don't want to regurgitate from my economic history books. Also, said ogre kingdoms just happen to be in between the cathayan land, sretching a barbarous amonunt of land up to just almost the doorstep of the Empire.
*Gasp* You've actually found that bretonnia is a rip-off of the arturic legends!? No gak sherlock. Vampire counts are a mash-up that is more than just vampires. Same goes for elves' and their history. Or dwarves for that matter. Are you honestly making this argument or just going by the slippery slope? Because generic doesn't mean it's based on. It means it's been to death (and before you go on to say something about the VC... they ARE the ones to set the trend, not the other way around), in a lot of literature and plenty of table tops and roleplays you can find this great asian entity with lots of mystical yada yada...oh and the terracota warriors, they have those too, warrior monks and repeating crossbows are present. They did give a glimpse of what the troops would look like and they are regurgitated from chinese/japanese tropes. And yes, we know because Tamurkhan-Throne of chaos showed a battle scene of them and they are just a bunch of cliches and pretty generic ones at that.
If you're telling me that 99% of the fantasy settings are based on a german confederacies using seventeenth century technology you clearly haven't read a lot.
Yeah, they could have made the game an even bigger mess and further wreck how things went. I mean, people are praising the current warhammer and how streamlined its armies are, aren't they? Or like some people wanted to know about the horus heresy' story. Yeah, it went from a myth to a joke of daddy issues and psychiatric tales.
China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route. I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed? Just as I reduced those factions into overly simplistic terms, you did the same thing.
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
"Upstart colonies" was the point I was making, nice job missing it again.
"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth. Also, Hong Kong, not china. That island also is a whole different story respect the country and had alway been so.
They are also bemoaning the fact that the game is becoming a mess with new supplement releases and a book-keeping nightmare. And what development said faction got WAS generic. Please look my edit.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route. I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.
Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it? Not sure of your point about Hong Kong, as it was a part of China, before it was captured by British forces in 1841. The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.
Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"
I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route. I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.
Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it? The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"
I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.
I'm not ignoring the points about Cathay being generic, as you have not made such points. Instead of being so confrontational, perhaps you can make these points? Or do I have to make them for you?
And I'm not sure of what Japanese cliches concerning Cathay you are referring to. In the 7th ed BrB, where there's a brief paragraph on Cathay, all it mentioned is that its ruled by an Emperor (both China and Japan had an emperor, so hardly a Japanese thing), was surrounded by a huge wall to fend off barbarian hordes (a Chinese thing), warrior monks (both a Chinese and Japanese thing, Shaolin and Sohei respectively) and had cannons (Those were invented in China, and were used frequently there. Not so much in Japan)
Now is that generic? Yes, at first glance. But only because its a paragraph that barely expands upon them, and because they haven't been developed. If the other factions weren't as developed, you could probably do the same to them.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: China was also colonized in the 19th century. Hong Kong, to be specific. Turns out the Brits really wanted that trade route.
I also said they weren't part of Europe. Look at the map of Europe and try to point out Egypt and South America.
The western powers also had a stake in Japan during the 19th century, and even before that the Portuguese and Dutch traded with them frequently. Such contact in the 16th, by the way, had a significant impact in Japan. Not so much in the west, admittedly.
I don't think you understood my argument. I was pointing out that calling an undeveloped faction generic is overly simplistic. If those factions were developed and had their own distinct derivations, then what makes them different from the major ones that are developed?
Considering how people seemed to have received the inclusion of Ad Mech, Skitarii and Genestealer cults quite well, I do think they are praising it.
"19th century" Yeah, a pity WHFB was based on the seventeenth/sixteenth.
Didn't stop you from bringing up Egypt's colonization. Or does it only count when you do it?
The Horus Heresy was always a rehash of Lucifer's fall from heaven, which could also be reduced to "Daddy isn't paying attention to me enough, I go rebel now"
I brought it in for a blanket statement. Could have made the statemnt of: mediterranean, europe and america. Period. Happy now? The focus has always been the NOT!Mediterranean, NoT!European lands and NOT!America. Now we can move to another thing instead of you desperately triying to get a cheap gotcha and ignore the points as to why cathay, even though underfleshed, has been portrayed as generic? What is worse is that those cliches are mainly japanese.
I'm not ignoring the points about Cathay being generic, as you have not made such points. Instead of being so confrontational, perhaps you can make these points?
And I'm not sure of what Japanese cliches concerning Cathay you are referring to. In the 7th ed BrB, where there's a brief paragraph on Cathay, all it mentioned is that its ruled by an Emperor (both China and Japan had an emperor, so hardly a Japanese thing), was surrounded by a huge wall to fend off barbarian hordes (a chinese thing), warrior monks (both a Chinese and Japanese thing) and had cannons (Those were invented in China, and were used frequently there. Not so much in Japan)
Maybe if you had actually read the edits you'd know. Instead of being smug you could go and read them, specially since I told you so from the second comment of this tirade.
But I'll repeat myself: in Tamurkhan Throne of chaos they appear: their troops feature amongst other things samurais ( elite soldier-caste wielding thousand folded swords *cough*katanas*cough* and backbanners) tengu, an artillery piece whose design was of japanese origin but I don't recall the name and shintoistic stuff. It all read as an asian regurgitation of tropes. And it was fairly more than a single paragrapah.
I admit I do not have Throne of Chaos, but if that is the case that is pretty bad writing. I suppose they just didn't put the effort in, as it was an undeveloped faction, so they just threw in whatever nonsense came to mind. And no, you didn't repeat yourself. When you first mentioned the Throne of Chaos all you said what that it was a series of cliches. You did not specify what said cliches were. You did mention a bunch of cliches that are found in other works, but did not specify which ones were in your example.
I admit I do not have Throne of Chaos, but if that is the case that is pretty bad writing.
And no, you didn't repeat yourself. When you first mentioned the Throne of Chaos all you said what that it was a series of cliches. You did not specify what said cliches were.
You did mention a bunch of cliches that are found in other works, but did not specify which ones were in your example.
*Look at my comments*
Oh god fething dammit. Bravo my internet.
Yeah, from that moment on I did really not want anything to do with Cathay. I mean, it was strong stuff and all... but most of it was straight up taken from japanese/chinese fantasy tropes. Not in the example of bretonnians which, from the get go did add a teensy tiny twist (their society it's not all thats cracked up to be, the casualties are refered to, they worship the lady and it seems to be a bit of bad news if you think of her with care).
Araby may have deserved attention but I held about as much ilusion as with Cathay (which had been rumored to be the focus of one of the three books of the trilogy). Better leave it to the imagination before they ruin it. Honestly speaking, I was fine with them not touching the other factions least they did it again. And it was forgeworld who generally are more careful with stories.
Well, considering how FW's writing ability apparently went down, I guess GW hasn't gotten better.
Ok, but on topic, there are some things I do like. The painting videos are good, they are bringing back lists for minor factions (GSC and Ad Mech), like they used to do a decade ago (Kroot, Southlands, etc), and they are bringing back specialist games as well as new board games.
That's good, I like that. Its not what I wanted, and I'd rather they bring back WHFB, stop coming up with horrible names, make necron vehicles look good, and fix 40k so it isn't a mess of rules, but baby steps, you know?
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.
When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.
Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.
Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).
jreilly89 wrote: Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).
I don't think people were necessarily excited for End Times because it was advancing the setting, it was because WHFB was getting attention and people like attention on their game.
People like campaigns and stories within their wargaming world, I don't think overall people like that story advancing in a way that upsets the status quo. But it would be interesting to have a poll.
What players liked recently was the return of CSM with formations and whatnot. Same holds for BA.
Some say that their CSM armies are playable again (to a certain extent).
jreilly89 wrote: Debatable. End Times sold very well for WHFB, everyone enjoyed the Eye of Terror official campaign (until GW pulled a bait and switch so that Chaos lost). People are excited for Cadia, the return of the Primarchs, etc. I think people like an advancing setting, as long as it doesn't go the AoS route (blow up your whole setting with something totally different).
I don't think people were necessarily excited for End Times because it was advancing the setting, it was because WHFB was getting attention and people like attention on their game.
People like campaigns and stories within their wargaming world, I don't think overall people like that story advancing in a way that upsets the status quo. But it would be interesting to have a poll.
Or to put it in simple terms, they liked it because they new stuff. Everyone likes new stuff. Unless its terrible. Like pumba gors.
Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.
Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.
Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.
So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.
Thank you GW I am so grateful.
What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?
As for the prices of the books, in Canadian funds they don't seem cheaper to me at all. What were the prices last time for the Shield of Baal books and Sanctus Reach books?
Tzeentch book for AoS is 136 pages, hardback, and priced at £20. From memory, that's cheaper than others of a similar size.
Fall of Cadia is £30 - which seems cheaper to me, but I don't know if it's a single book, or even the page count.
Could also be that both prices are printing whoopsies in WD.
So they reduce book prices.. but churn out way more books diluting the useful content in them, lost in setting destroying... I mean setting advancing fluff.
Thank you GW I am so grateful.
What are they destroying Kaiyanwang?
As for the prices of the books, in Canadian funds they don't seem cheaper to me at all. What were the prices last time for the Shield of Baal books and Sanctus Reach books?
Shield of baal: was (and is) 40 pounds per softback (and I honestly don't want to know how much the hardback was) book (leviathan and exterminatus)
Shield of baal: was (and is) 40 pounds per softback (and I honestly don't want to know how much the hardback was) book (leviathan and exterminatus)
Thanks for that. So about $80 Canadian then. Dang I really wish my memory isn't failing me. I bought the hard cover because I was a Nid collector. I guess I paid about $100 Canadian for them so about 50 pounds. So I guess the prices for the new books will be cheaper if it's in hard cover and same number of pages or more. I know I haven't bought any of the $80 or $90 books GW as asking for with Age of Sigmar books. Not sure how many pages those books had.
Sadly any new book GW releases now is all obsolete come June correct? So is it really worth getting? I was thinking of getting the new book since it's advancing the fluff. Thing is knowing it will be obsolete in 5 months or so is it "worth" getting? I guess it depends what worth means for the individual person. I guess I will have to wait and see the reviews and how people like it before buying. I am just hoping GW is not under producing just so they "sell out" and seem to be in high demand.
I doubt traitor legions will be obsolete, same for fall of cadia. If what they say is true, they will only contain formations which means they can change the rules and points for the units and still make it valid. Just my two cents. I'm honestly not buying anything as Spire of dawn and add-ons has dried up my wallet, so I'll revert to piracy, like my kin have done since the beginning of times and up to actuality.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, they are marketing fall of cadia as the most epic event in 40k up to date. My body is not ready for this.
Davor wrote: What do you mean by "if they say what is true". Who is they and what are they saying?
The rumors regarding that, barring celestine and the others, we won't be getting new units in the books, only formations and extra rules. Which may make the books worth it as they'll still be usable for game, only that the profile for the units they are written for may change with 8th.
Lord Kragan wrote: can change the rules and points for the units and still make it valid.
This is a problem of the new format. They do not change the units, they just add formations and moar rules*. If a unit is defective remans so unless the amount of rules stacked is overwhelmingly good (like the Death Guard).
This help little codices with organic problems, OR force them to play formations and specific rules, destroying the potential diversity of list building.
* One possible exception are the new Purestrains Jeanstealers. But they are a different unit.
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.
When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.
Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.
This is especially true as the setting is so incredibly vast. The 40K universe is utterly immense, virtually anything could be happening within and without the Imperium's borders. The fluff only becomes stagnant if writers and gamers lack imagination; that's not to say that events could be resolved (its basically required if large campaigns are going to have any effect) but they should always be peripheral to the central narrative.
Just look at the sheer quantity of fluff that FFG produced for their RPGs and that's (mostly) only in 1 Sector!
For years, people have complained the background is stagnant.
GW now address that. And others feel they shouldn't.
Me, I'm seeing how it all plays out. I enjoyed Wrath of Magnus, and will be ordering Fall of Cadia tomorrow morning (sadly, not in my local store, as I'll be at home awaiting delivery of two parcels)
Some people complained, many people were perfectly happy with a stagnant setting.
When it comes specifically to a wargaming setting I'm perfectly happy with things not changing over time other than going more in depth to existing areas or exploring new areas within the existing setting rather than tearing down existing elements.
Pretty much this, tbh - the setting is meant to be consistent, so you can tell your stories within it.
This is especially true as the setting is so incredibly vast. The 40K universe is utterly immense, virtually anything could be happening within and without the Imperium's borders. The fluff only becomes stagnant if writers and gamers lack imagination; that's not to say that events could be resolved (its basically required if large campaigns are going to have any effect) but they should always be peripheral to the central narrative.
Just look at the sheer quantity of fluff that FFG produced for their RPGs and that's (mostly) only in 1 Sector!
However this thought baffles me however, could you not just play in the former ages as you do now even as the setting advances? Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date? Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.
Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date?
It's not the "date" it's when the setting advances to the point as to start breaking the reasons you might have started an army in the first place or in some cases your ability to actually collect a certain force (Bretonnians, Tomb Kings, Squats, swathes of units for WHFB that were removed even if the army itself wasn't removed).
You can of course imagine your own setting which may be a historical setting within the provided setting, but the point of the game manufacturer providing a setting in the first place is to give a compelling reason to start, collect and play a certain force while keeping the community on the same page.
Taken to the extreme you could just say "why have a setting at all if people can just imagine stuff?"
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.
On the flip side, why can't you just imagine your own battlefields and wars within a setting that isn't advancing?
Obviously it's all just personal preference. I don't begrudge people for wanting an advancing setting, but I personally do not want one and think it detracts from a wargaming setting to have it shifting rather than just having a solid foundation that you explore in more depth rather than actually altering.
On the flip side, why can't you just imagine your own battlefields and wars within a setting that isn't advancing?
Obviously it's all just personal preference. I don't begrudge people for wanting an advancing setting, but I personally do not want one and think it detracts from a wargaming setting to have it shifting rather than just having a solid foundation that you explore in more depth rather than actually altering.
The problem with one is that one preference is still able to be catered to in both situations while one is stagnant. In both cases you'll still have your imagination to be able to explore a setting in full but if one doesn't have an advancing storyline it will feel stagnant to those who don't prefer a setting just sit there on the edge of midnight.
One can use new things from new era's for their advancing storyline while the former still has that and all the available previously, thus why I don't honestly understand the dislike towards an advancing storyline based on the principle of exploring a setting.
Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date?
It's not the "date" it's when the setting advances to the point as to start breaking the reasons you might have started an army in the first place or in some cases your ability to actually collect a certain force (Bretonnians, Tomb Kings, Squats, swathes of units for WHFB that were removed even if the army itself wasn't removed).
You can of course imagine your own setting which may be a historical setting within the provided setting, but the point of the game manufacturer providing a setting in the first place is to give a compelling reason to start, collect and play a certain force while keeping the community on the same page.
Taken to the extreme you could just say "why have a setting at all if people can just imagine stuff?"
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.
On the flip side, why can't you just imagine your own battlefields and wars within a setting that isn't advancing?
Obviously it's all just personal preference. I don't begrudge people for wanting an advancing setting, but I personally do not want one and think it detracts from a wargaming setting to have it shifting rather than just having a solid foundation that you explore in more depth rather than actually altering.
Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date?
It's not the "date" it's when the setting advances to the point as to start breaking the reasons you might have started an army in the first place or in some cases your ability to actually collect a certain force (Bretonnians, Tomb Kings, Squats, swathes of units for WHFB that were removed even if the army itself wasn't removed).
You can of course imagine your own setting which may be a historical setting within the provided setting, but the point of the game manufacturer providing a setting in the first place is to give a compelling reason to start, collect and play a certain force while keeping the community on the same page.
Taken to the extreme you could just say "why have a setting at all if people can just imagine stuff?"
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.
On the flip side, why can't you just imagine your own battlefields and wars within a setting that isn't advancing?
Obviously it's all just personal preference. I don't begrudge people for wanting an advancing setting, but I personally do not want one and think it detracts from a wargaming setting to have it shifting rather than just having a solid foundation that you explore in more depth rather than actually altering.
This....
But to those poeple who are in for the advancement of the plot line:
Settra could have had a rebelious Tomb King ( not Arkhan ), who questionned his authority, aka thing happining in Khemri.
There could have been a major chaos cultist uprising lets say in Stirland with Beastmen support. Plot is is moving forward.
Golgfag Meaneater could have brought a bunch of angry Ogres agianst Karak Kadrin thus Ungrim ask help from the High King and it begins a Ogre-Dwarf war. Plot is moving forward.
Etc. etc.
A good writer can write a good book about a dark room or two people just waiting for man ( Waiting for Godot ).
ZebioLizard2 wrote: However this thought baffles me however, could you not just play in the former ages as you do now even as the setting advances? Does your imagination get broken as the fluff starts to progress forward beyond a set date? Infact why wouldn't it help increase it as it adds new battlefields and wars and other things you could use.
No. But problem is you start having your _base_ replaced making your fluff makes zero sense.
Imagine how much current 40k fluff makes sense if horus heresy was removed? You would have to recreate fluff pretty much completely.
Our High elf vs dark elf campaigns lost all sensibility with EOS Khaine. It did not just change date. It undermined whole basic assumptions.
It's been a storming 6 months and no mistake, but the remaining question is sustainability.
Like it or not, it seems AoS is doing well - and if taken at face value, better than GW expected.
But 40k? Well, we've had some much clamoured for releases recently, most notably Genestealer Cults - that's a crowd pleaser for sure, as are plakky Thousand Sons and the inherent promise other Legions will get some love.
Prospero has allowed me to put together a 3,000 point heresy force in double quick time for relatively little outlay (three copies...hehehehe)
Their community engagement has been pretty damned good, and well received by the majority so far as I'm aware.
Question is, how to keep it up? There's definitely still tin in the mine for now, but there's always the threat of diminishing returns.
Personally, I'm happy they'll keep to the current course for the simple reason it works, and there's more to come (Adeptus Titanicus is getting a hefty broadside from the Grotsnik Kustom Mk1 Kash Kannon on release, as might Necromunda if/when we see it).
But it's inevitable that what is fresh will, over time, become stale.
Genuine worst case scenario? GW prove too successful, and attract enough of the general populace's collective wargaming moneypot to see off some of their smaller competitors (those just starting out), and even the possibility of shoving larger rivals onto a slippy slope. Why is this bad? It could lead to complacency, and the cycle repeating itself all over again, which isn't terribly good business.
Now, if they prove the absolute, unequivocal market force once again (they're still the biggest by a long shot), but continue to engage and enthuse, no issues there.
Of course it's smoke and mirrors. It gets people back into buying. GW gave the discount on the plastic crack, but if you want more plastic crack and if it's not in the "saver boxes" you are still paying way over priced minis. So not sure how it's a Win-win. Rules are still a mess. Not seeing how it's a Win-win. Balance is still a total mess. How is that a Win-win?
For now, we have the illusion of change. Appearance. We are not belittled out in public anymore. If you don't care for social media then all the stuff GW is doing means nothing. Until the rules are fixed and then there is worth to the prices GW charges, there has been no change. So yes, it's all smoke and mirrors. The game plays no differently and outside "saver boxes" prices are just going up up up.
Of course it's smoke and mirrors. It gets people back into buying. GW gave the discount on the plastic crack, but if you want more plastic crack and if it's not in the "saver boxes" you are still paying way over priced minis. So not sure how it's a Win-win. Rules are still a mess. Not seeing how it's a Win-win. Balance is still a total mess. How is that a Win-win?
For now, we have the illusion of change. Appearance. We are not belittled out in public anymore. If you don't care for social media then all the stuff GW is doing means nothing. Until the rules are fixed and then there is worth to the prices GW charges, there has been no change. So yes, it's all smoke and mirrors. The game plays no differently and outside "saver boxes" prices are just going up up up.
You are so prejudiced with 40k rules that you are not able to see the other things. Besides everything that I have argued troughout the thread (social media, return of SG and even prices): AoS rules (now with points) are fine and I heard no complaints about BB rules. There is even the second FAQ for BB out. So there is one part where they still have to provide substantial change (which I partially understand). But this belittles evertyhing to Smoke and Mirrors? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously!
Of course it's smoke and mirrors. It gets people back into buying. GW gave the discount on the plastic crack, but if you want more plastic crack and if it's not in the "saver boxes" you are still paying way over priced minis. So not sure how it's a Win-win. Rules are still a mess. Not seeing how it's a Win-win. Balance is still a total mess. How is that a Win-win?
For now, we have the illusion of change. Appearance. We are not belittled out in public anymore. If you don't care for social media then all the stuff GW is doing means nothing. Until the rules are fixed and then there is worth to the prices GW charges, there has been no change. So yes, it's all smoke and mirrors. The game plays no differently and outside "saver boxes" prices are just going up up up.
You are so prejudiced with 40k rules that you are not able to see the other things. Besides everything that I have argued troughout the thread (social media, return of SG and even prices): AoS rules (now with points) are fine and I heard no complaints about BB rules. There is even the second FAQ for BB out. So there is one part where they still have to provide substantial change (which I partially understand). But this belittles evertyhing to Smoke and Mirrors? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously!
Have the Blood Bowl rules actually changed in any real way from their last iteration?
It's smoke and mirrors because they haven't gone back to fix the other problems. They gave AOS points, and that was well received (whether or not it should have been done, that's another argument). They have some boxes that save money, but once you get past that it's still as expensive as ever, so it's essentially the drug dealer's approach (i.e. "First hit is free/cheap, then you gotta pay up"). 40k is still a complete mess. Armies still get updated infrequently. They still don't put out a lot of narrative things for a game they claim is unsuited to competitive play.
They have improved, that has not been denied, but it remains to be seen if it's a ploy or not. It very well could be if they show no indication of doing more, just enough to get good PR and then keep everything else the same.
Wayniac wrote: It's smoke and mirrors because they haven't gone back to fix the other problems. They gave AOS points, and that was well received (whether or not it should have been done, that's another argument). They have some boxes that save money, but once you get past that it's still as expensive as ever, so it's essentially the drug dealer's approach (i.e. "First hit is free/cheap, then you gotta pay up"). 40k is still a complete mess. Armies still get updated infrequently. They still don't put out a lot of narrative things for a game they claim is unsuited to competitive play.
They have improved, that has not been denied, but it remains to be seen if it's a ploy or not. It very well could be if they show no indication of doing more, just enough to get good PR and then keep everything else the same.
I just have to point out that they don't say 40k/AoS isn't a competitive game anymore. They are actually highlighting that style of play equally with Narrative now on a weekly basis. And they have put out a fair bit of narrative stuff in the last year. AoS saw 3? Campaign books. 40k saw at least 3 sets (CotW, WoM, and the two initial Black Crusade books). Arguably they've released more for narrative than they have for competitive.
Also no, it's gotten much cheaper than in the previous 5 years (or even decade). You can play tournament AoS for less than $350 for 2k AT RETAIL. You can play 40k is cheaper but still far to high for the ultra competitive lists. But you can get 1850 together at retail for around $500 (to high but cheaper) at Retail.
Agreed 40k is still a mess. I enjoy it but god it's in a terrible place for someone starting. Hoping 8th rights the ship (and I've heard good things and it's actually being play tested this time around) but a lot hinges on that going right.
Wayniac wrote: It's smoke and mirrors because they haven't gone back to fix the other problems. They gave AOS points, and that was well received (whether or not it should have been done, that's another argument). They have some boxes that save money, but once you get past that it's still as expensive as ever, so it's essentially the drug dealer's approach (i.e. "First hit is free/cheap, then you gotta pay up"). 40k is still a complete mess. Armies still get updated infrequently. They still don't put out a lot of narrative things for a game they claim is unsuited to competitive play.
They have improved, that has not been denied, but it remains to be seen if it's a ploy or not. It very well could be if they show no indication of doing more, just enough to get good PR and then keep everything else the same.
I just have to point out that they don't say 40k/AoS isn't a competitive game anymore. They are actually highlighting that style of play equally with Narrative now on a weekly basis. And they have put out a fair bit of narrative stuff in the last year. AoS saw 3? Campaign books. 40k saw at least 3 sets (CotW, WoM, and the two initial Black Crusade books). Arguably they've released more for narrative than they have for competitive.
Also no, it's gotten much cheaper than in the previous 5 years (or even decade). You can play tournament AoS for less than $350 for 2k AT RETAIL. You can play 40k is cheaper but still far to high for the ultra competitive lists. But you can get 1850 together at retail for around $500 (to high but cheaper) at Retail.
Agreed 40k is still a mess. I enjoy it but god it's in a terrible place for someone starting. Hoping 8th rights the ship (and I've heard good things and it's actually being play tested this time around) but a lot hinges on that going right.
As an aside, iirc, GW has been distancing themselves from the tournament scene i thought? At least thats what i have been seeing, reasoning being they dont actually want to host or sponsor them because it causes to much drama/bullgak. I know my store at least says they never host prize tournaments.
As an aside, iirc, GW has been distancing themselves from the tournament scene i thought? At least thats what i have been seeing, reasoning being they dont actually want to host or sponsor them because it causes to much drama/bullgak. I know my store at least says they never host prize tournaments.
That's mostly old GW, distancing itself from everything that's not GW.
I believe the new GW has been trying to get closer to the tournament scene.
Yup, they've been showing up at AoS events to cover them and video top tables. They'll be at LVO (largest 40k tournament in the world pretty sure with 500 players in singles GT event alone) and Adepticon (one of the other largest 40k events in the world with the Team Tournament normally clocking in around 450 players). They highlight a competitive and narrative game every week for both systems on their broadcast and are actively engaging TO's of major US and UK events.
Oh, and they are providing trophies either LVO or Adepticon or both (can't remember).
They're happy to have others running them but have finally under the new management realized that they can benefit massively from it if done correctly for little or no major output.
Hulksmash wrote: Yup, they've been showing up at AoS events to cover them and video top tables. They'll be at LVO (largest 40k tournament in the world pretty sure with 500 players in singles GT event alone) and Adepticon (one of the other largest 40k events in the world with the Team Tournament normally clocking in around 450 players). They highlight a competitive and narrative game every week for both systems on their broadcast and are actively engaging TO's of major US and UK events.
Oh, and they are providing trophies either LVO or Adepticon or both (can't remember).
They're happy to have others running them but have finally under the new management realized that they can benefit massively from it if done correctly for little or no major output.
I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
Ehm, what about the Armoured Assault boxes? Can't tell about every army but for quite some of them they contain essential models at a (once more nice) discount...
Of course it's smoke and mirrors. It gets people back into buying. GW gave the discount on the plastic crack, but if you want more plastic crack and if it's not in the "saver boxes" you are still paying way over priced minis. So not sure how it's a Win-win. Rules are still a mess. Not seeing how it's a Win-win. Balance is still a total mess. How is that a Win-win?
For now, we have the illusion of change. Appearance. We are not belittled out in public anymore. If you don't care for social media then all the stuff GW is doing means nothing. Until the rules are fixed and then there is worth to the prices GW charges, there has been no change. So yes, it's all smoke and mirrors. The game plays no differently and outside "saver boxes" prices are just going up up up.
You are so prejudiced with 40k rules that you are not able to see the other things. Besides everything that I have argued troughout the thread (social media, return of SG and even prices): AoS rules (now with points) are fine and I heard no complaints about BB rules. There is even the second FAQ for BB out. So there is one part where they still have to provide substantial change (which I partially understand). But this belittles evertyhing to Smoke and Mirrors? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously!
Of course I am prejudiced. I don't care for social media. So why would all the stuff I care for? For me it's the rules and the price. It's my opinion. It seems that is for a lot of people as well. Again, as I said before, I bought a lot last year in 2016 of GW products. While the new "attitude" worked in the end 40K is still a mess, and the costs are still high. Please tell me where I can buy a Trygon cheaper? How about some Tyrant Guard, or any other Tyranid product that is not a Warrior, Genestealer, Tyrant or now Tervigon?
I laugh at the "prices are cheaper now because of 'value boxes' ". If you want to add to your army and as I said, it's not in a value box, the prices are still high.
morgoth wrote:
Hulksmash wrote: Yup, they've been showing up at AoS events to cover them and video top tables. They'll be at LVO (largest 40k tournament in the world pretty sure with 500 players in singles GT event alone) and Adepticon (one of the other largest 40k events in the world with the Team Tournament normally clocking in around 450 players). They highlight a competitive and narrative game every week for both systems on their broadcast and are actively engaging TO's of major US and UK events.
Oh, and they are providing trophies either LVO or Adepticon or both (can't remember).
They're happy to have others running them but have finally under the new management realized that they can benefit massively from it if done correctly for little or no major output.
I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
Oh thank you very much. Yes, Read rule book go to page 34 then to page 193 back to page 75. Oh and then check FAQ, go to your codex, page 37, then to page 99 and back to the FAQ.
NO the FAQs didn't fix the game. The game is still unbalanced. There is way too much codex creep. Oh and how about the rules for Cawl and what not? I won't mention those until next week till we know for sure since they are still rumours. But let's say for now they are true. How is your 16 pages of BRBFAQ fixing the unbalanced in points, rules, codex creep? HMMMMM? Yes please explain that.
So thank you very much for proving on how GW has not fixed the game yet. Greatly appreciated.
Of course it's smoke and mirrors. It gets people back into buying. GW gave the discount on the plastic crack, but if you want more plastic crack and if it's not in the "saver boxes" you are still paying way over priced minis. So not sure how it's a Win-win. Rules are still a mess. Not seeing how it's a Win-win. Balance is still a total mess. How is that a Win-win?
For now, we have the illusion of change. Appearance. We are not belittled out in public anymore. If you don't care for social media then all the stuff GW is doing means nothing. Until the rules are fixed and then there is worth to the prices GW charges, there has been no change. So yes, it's all smoke and mirrors. The game plays no differently and outside "saver boxes" prices are just going up up up.
You are so prejudiced with 40k rules that you are not able to see the other things. Besides everything that I have argued troughout the thread (social media, return of SG and even prices): AoS rules (now with points) are fine and I heard no complaints about BB rules. There is even the second FAQ for BB out. So there is one part where they still have to provide substantial change (which I partially understand). But this belittles evertyhing to Smoke and Mirrors? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously!
Of course I am prejudiced. I don't care for social media. So why would all the stuff I care for? For me it's the rules and the price. It's my opinion. It seems that is for a lot of people as well. Again, as I said before, I bought a lot last year in 2016 of GW products. While the new "attitude" worked in the end 40K is still a mess, and the costs are still high. Please tell me where I can buy a Trygon cheaper? How about some Tyrant Guard, or any other Tyranid product that is not a Warrior, Genestealer, Tyrant or now Tervigon?
I laugh at the "prices are cheaper now because of 'value boxes' ". If you want to add to your army and as I said, it's not in a value box, the prices are still high.
Please point me to ANY game where you can get all and any of the models you want cheaper? Privateer Press, X-Wing, FOW? Please, please point me in that direction. Because it's hypocrite that you expect GW to do so and NONE of the others is doing so either. But as morgoth already pointed out: "GW is evil inc".
For number of models needed you certainly can get Privateer Press cheaper. I see people spout that bs all the time about "price per model" but for what you actually need for a list, it's roughly 50% of the price. I've spent about $700 on PP models over the course of a year and a half and have more than enough to field 2 armies, that's maybe 1 large army for 40k.
So yes, it is cheaper for other games. Not at price per model, because that's irrelevant, but when you look at the amount actually needed for a typical size list.
Wayniac wrote: For number of models needed you certainly can get Privateer Press cheaper. I see people spout that bs all the time about "price per model" but for what you actually need for a list, it's roughly 50% of the price. I've spent about $700 on PP models over the course of a year and a half and have more than enough to field 2 armies, that's maybe 1 large army for 40k.
So yes, it is cheaper for other games. Not at price per model, because that's irrelevant, but when you look at the amount actually needed for a typical size list.
That was not the question. Davor complained that value boxes don't count because he can't freely choose. I would like to know who offers something like this.
Please point me to ANY game where you can get all and any of the models you want cheaper? Privateer Press, X-Wing, FOW? Please, please point me in that direction. Because it's hypocrite that you expect GW to do so and NONE of the others is doing so either. But as morgoth already pointed out: "GW is evil inc".
No GW is not the evil INC. So not sure what that is all about. But it's one of their issues. So you are deflecting me from not answering or changing what is talked about by from other companies doing the same thing eh? Well as others have told me, that is apples to oranges. On a per mini bases, in a lot of cases GW still costs more. On a total, GW just blows the other companies out of the water on how much you need to spend to play a game.
But then again why are you making it out as if this is the first time ever someone mentions that the prices GW charges is not an issue. I am sure I am not alone in saying GW charges way to much. I have read about this in a few different threads today about how people wish GW charged less or didn't charge so much for what they are asking for. So I am not alone. I am not sure why you are making it out that this is a non issue and trying to embarrass me. This is an issue to a lot of people.
But let's get back to your point. I bought X-wing for about $60 Canadian dollars and started playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. If we are going to compare Games Workshop with Privateer Press, on equal point games each you still have to pay more for 40K over Warmahordes. I can buy a $60 box of PP minis and start playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. PP even gives the rules in the box on how to play. I can't do that with 40K. I can pick any faction and start playing for $60. Can't do that with 40K. I can get the rules for free with PP. Can't do that for 40K.
Funny how PP is asking what $60 for their "stater or value" sets and GW is asking $100 for their same sets.
Where are the free rules on the net for 40K?
So what was that about price? PP is more expensive or as expensive as 40K? Thank you very much again for making me correct and proving my point again. There is no hypocrite here at all.
Please point me to ANY game where you can get all and any of the models you want cheaper? Privateer Press, X-Wing, FOW? Please, please point me in that direction. Because it's hypocrite that you expect GW to do so and NONE of the others is doing so either. But as morgoth already pointed out: "GW is evil inc".
No GW is not the evil INC. So not sure what that is all about. But it's one of their issues. So you are deflecting me from not answering or changing what is talked about by from other companies doing the same thing eh? Well as others have told me, that is apples to oranges. On a per mini bases, in a lot of cases GW still costs more. On a total, GW just blows the other companies out of the water on how much you need to spend to play a game.
But then again why are you making it out as if this is the first time ever someone mentions that the prices GW charges is not an issue. I am sure I am not alone in saying GW charges way to much. I have read about this in a few different threads today about how people wish GW charged less or didn't charge so much for what they are asking for. So I am not alone. I am not sure why you are making it out that this is a non issue and trying to embarrass me. This is an issue to a lot of people.
Nobody ever said anything against a rather high price point. Everybody is pointing out that it actually became cheaper because of SC, the x-mas boxes and now armoured assault. Yes, there are stupid exceptions like Kharn. No, you can't get whatever you want. But the overall cost for an army is reduced compared to the time at the end of Kirbys reign. And you still shout "Smoke and Mirrors", "Smoke and Mirrors" because they don't provide a flat out price reduction?
But let's get back to your point. I bought X-wing for about $60 Canadian dollars and started playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. If we are going to compare Games Workshop with Privateer Press, on equal point games each you still have to pay more for 40K over Warmahordes. I can buy a $60 box of PP minis and start playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. PP even gives the rules in the box on how to play. I can't do that with 40K. I can pick any faction and start playing for $60. Can't do that with 40K. I can get the rules for free with PP. Can't do that for 40K.
You get three meager ships in that starter wheras the AoS or WH40K starter gets you loads more minis. For 110 USD. I'm pretty sure the value stands way better for WH40K. For AoS you actually can start with a SC box as the rules are free. Or take the Spire of Dawn and even start two armies and share with a friend. .
Please point me to ANY game where you can get all and any of the models you want cheaper? Privateer Press, X-Wing, FOW? Please, please point me in that direction. Because it's hypocrite that you expect GW to do so and NONE of the others is doing so either. But as morgoth already pointed out: "GW is evil inc".
No GW is not the evil INC. So not sure what that is all about. But it's one of their issues. So you are deflecting me from not answering or changing what is talked about by from other companies doing the same thing eh? Well as others have told me, that is apples to oranges. On a per mini bases, in a lot of cases GW still costs more. On a total, GW just blows the other companies out of the water on how much you need to spend to play a game.
But then again why are you making it out as if this is the first time ever someone mentions that the prices GW charges is not an issue. I am sure I am not alone in saying GW charges way to much. I have read about this in a few different threads today about how people wish GW charged less or didn't charge so much for what they are asking for. So I am not alone. I am not sure why you are making it out that this is a non issue and trying to embarrass me. This is an issue to a lot of people.
But let's get back to your point. I bought X-wing for about $60 Canadian dollars and started playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. If we are going to compare Games Workshop with Privateer Press, on equal point games each you still have to pay more for 40K over Warmahordes. I can buy a $60 box of PP minis and start playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. PP even gives the rules in the box on how to play. I can't do that with 40K. I can pick any faction and start playing for $60. Can't do that with 40K. I can get the rules for free with PP. Can't do that for 40K.
Funny how PP is asking what $60 for their "stater or value" sets and GW is asking $100 for their same sets.
Where are the free rules on the net for 40K?
So what was that about price? PP is more expensive or as expensive as 40K? Thank you very much again for making me correct and proving my point again. There is no hypocrite here at all.
As much as I enjoy all 3 games you've mentioned, you're giving too much credit to WM/H. You can get ONE side of a starter army for that $60. X-Wing and GW both give you two sides. To get a 2 player starter set from PP would be $120 by your example. X-Wing gives the cheapest starter set, but you also only get 3 ships. Best monetary value for your buck is still a GW starter. Of course, you have to like what you get. The best value in the world is worthless if you hate what you have.
I am smoke and mirrors because in the end the changes we want the most, price points for individual kits and clearly written, concise well written rules, balanced codices and fair points we don't have and is getting worse.
So when I say smoke and mirrors, "it's look here, we have oooooooooooooooooooo social media. Look and listen how great everything is, even though we haven't fixed the rules at all and the game can still play horrible if that is what you thought before."
"Lookie over here at these great values here". Buy these and save money, but don't look there what you really want but don't want to pay for.
Look I give GW excellent credit here. They made people spend so much money, me included without fixing anything that was really broken or the issues we stopped buying in the first place.
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
Couldn't you buy those Christmas bundles online ?
Some silly people like to support their local FLGS with purchases so they stay open.
Please point me to ANY game where you can get all and any of the models you want cheaper? Privateer Press, X-Wing, FOW? Please, please point me in that direction. Because it's hypocrite that you expect GW to do so and NONE of the others is doing so either. But as morgoth already pointed out: "GW is evil inc".
No GW is not the evil INC. So not sure what that is all about. But it's one of their issues. So you are deflecting me from not answering or changing what is talked about by from other companies doing the same thing eh? Well as others have told me, that is apples to oranges. On a per mini bases, in a lot of cases GW still costs more. On a total, GW just blows the other companies out of the water on how much you need to spend to play a game.
But then again why are you making it out as if this is the first time ever someone mentions that the prices GW charges is not an issue. I am sure I am not alone in saying GW charges way to much. I have read about this in a few different threads today about how people wish GW charged less or didn't charge so much for what they are asking for. So I am not alone. I am not sure why you are making it out that this is a non issue and trying to embarrass me. This is an issue to a lot of people.
But let's get back to your point. I bought X-wing for about $60 Canadian dollars and started playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. If we are going to compare Games Workshop with Privateer Press, on equal point games each you still have to pay more for 40K over Warmahordes. I can buy a $60 box of PP minis and start playing right away. I can't do that with 40K. PP even gives the rules in the box on how to play. I can't do that with 40K. I can pick any faction and start playing for $60. Can't do that with 40K. I can get the rules for free with PP. Can't do that for 40K.
Funny how PP is asking what $60 for their "stater or value" sets and GW is asking $100 for their same sets.
Where are the free rules on the net for 40K?
So what was that about price? PP is more expensive or as expensive as 40K? Thank you very much again for making me correct and proving my point again. There is no hypocrite here at all.
As much as I enjoy all 3 games you've mentioned, you're giving too much credit to WM/H. You can get ONE side of a starter army for that $60. X-Wing and GW both give you two sides. To get a 2 player starter set from PP would be $120 by your example. X-Wing gives the cheapest starter set, but you also only get 3 ships. Best monetary value for your buck is still a GW starter. Of course, you have to like what you get. The best value in the world is worthless if you hate what you have.
Um, the WMH two player boxes are a thing for $90 RRP.
I was going with his $60 starter set example in Canada. It was one sided. I know they have a full sized set as well. But it wasn't the one he was addressing. Fair though; their $90 sets are better value than 2 $60 sets.
Ruin wrote:[Um, the WMH two player boxes are a thing for $90 RRP.
Totally forgot about that. I was talking about the single factions. But still the two player boxsets, PP is still cheaper than what GW is asking for by what $30 or $40? Even if you buy 2 single start sets for Warmahordes it's still cheaper than what GW is asking for a two player starter set.
The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Davor wrote: I can pick any faction and start playing for $60.
At the risk of encouraging the White Knight Squad, Davor, I feel I need to raise a point of order - well, three of them, as exceptions to your rule.
Convergence, Mercs and Minions did not get a Mk 3 starter, and I don't believe Minions have had a starter in any of the three editions (Mercs had two in Mk1, and Convergence had one upon Mk2 release).
I think they are turning it around on the releases, but not on the prices, yes one miniature from Kingdom death cost as much as a single miniature from GW, except that GW has the company infrastructure for producing for years, so they should be more price competitive, also i am interested in the new Celistine, but it will only be available in a boxed set with 2 other characters?
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
SKR.HH wrote: No. Change YOU want. I'm very happy with current development and obviously there are others as well.
But you now what? I'll place you on my ignore list and we don't have to discuss with each other anymore.
I can't fathom why I didn't do it earlier... I've done it several times in the past with other posters who repeat the same stuff over and over without listening to any argument.... I guess I'm getting old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: I think they are turning it around on the releases, but not on the prices, yes one miniature from Kingdom death cost as much as a single miniature from GW, except that GW has the company infrastructure for producing for years, so they should be more price competitive, also i am interested in the new Celistine, but it will only be available in a boxed set with 2 other characters?
Celestine will be available alone, but that boxed set is incredible value for Inquisition players.
I don't understand why you would want to compare the prices offered by the market leader in high quality toy soldiers, with some guys who made one kickstarter which may or may not be barely profitable for marketing purposes ...
Also, they're mostly selling pinups miniatures aren't they ?
Either way, I find the comparison ridiculous, and the idea that GW should sell their stuff for less just because they're a bigger company is mind-boggling.
How about you give me money because you seem to have more than some ?
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
Then I must say, they're both ridiculously expensive compared to Risk...
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
Couldn't you buy those Christmas bundles online ?
Some silly people like to support their local FLGS with purchases so they stay open.
Then buy the stuff at full price and support your friendly local even more.
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
Couldn't you buy those Christmas bundles online ?
Some silly people like to support their local FLGS with purchases so they stay open.
Then buy the stuff at full price and support your friendly local even more.
Davor wrote: I can pick any faction and start playing for $60.
At the risk of encouraging the White Knight Squad, Davor, I feel I need to raise a point of order - well, three of them, as exceptions to your rule.
Convergence, Mercs and Minions did not get a Mk 3 starter, and I don't believe Minions have had a starter in any of the three editions (Mercs had two in Mk1, and Convergence had one upon Mk2 release).
So has GW gotten better? Dark Angel, Lord of War Azreal is what 200+ points. Now with the Trimuative ( I know I spelt it wrong) is what 200 points for Cawl? So I take it Azreal is better than Call because he costs more points? Yeah right. GW is actually getting worse with rules because the balance is not there at all.
I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
As a business their customer interaction has certainly been better, bringing back fan favourites and engaging with the community now.
I'm still a little apprehensive. You're still paying premium prices for their product where competitors offer more (as in a completed army) for less. There's also a sense of favoritism within factions and while that's perfectly fine, it shouldn't influence the rules, or the new releases.
But they've certainly caught my attention having left 40k six months ago.
morgoth wrote: I'm sure our friends at "GW is Evil inc." will discard that as Smoke and Mirrors. After all it does nothing to fix the prices (unlike Christmas bundles or start playing) and nothing to fix the rules (unlike the 16 fething pages of BRBFAQ).
While the Start playing (or whatever they're called) boxes are good, the Christmas bundles were a, restricted to too few factions; b, restricted in volume to non-GWLGS' (at best three per box per store, from what I heard); and c, just restricted in volume overall.
Make some equivalent bundles - even if not quite as good value - available as a second-stage starting point to a faction, as a core part of the product line, then we'll talk.
As to providing some degree of tournament coverage and support, that is a good thing. Especially if seeing what is happening at those events exposes GW to the sort of degenerate combos that tend to make up top-end tournament lists, to illustrate balance problems in the games.
Couldn't you buy those Christmas bundles online ?
Some silly people like to support their local FLGS with purchases so they stay open.
Then buy the stuff at full price and support your friendly local even more.
Hi Poe, how's that law working out for you?
What is this poe law? On the crapper so it's a bit of a hassle to Google it, and you seem to think is pretty awesome.
Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Lansirill wrote: Then buy the stuff at full price and support your friendly local even more.
That's what I was trying to do with a pre-order, only for the cap to cause problems and GW to give my LGS the run-around as to whether they'd be able to get the one extra they needed to cover my order.
By the time a straight answer was received, they were "No longer available" on the GW website.
Which, when you consider the only exclusive bit in the box was a piece of paper is ludicrous - I'd've been happy if all the sprues came in white boxes, for example, but no...
If your local FLGS is where you do your gaming, or even some of your gaming, I'd say you're beholden to support that business, whether or not it discounts - not everyone can afford such tempting treats.
If you have a local FLGS, but you don't game there and/or the owner is a bit of a pain/rude, then very much less so.
Same goes for local GW stores - use it, or lose it. Possibly a bit preachy so apologies, but the only time I don't order through my local GW (only gaming store for miles around) is when I'm after something limited edition, like those Dice or Cards etc - simply because I stand a better chance of getting my order in on time to be fulfilled by doing so from home. That way I don't need to line up at the till to pay for my order.
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has EW now, though, so she'll need 30 scatter laser shots to bring her down, that's without accounting for hitting and wounding rolls.
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Okay. By that logic, Guildball is crazy overpriced compared to CandyLand or Monopoly. Monopoly even comes with figures you can paint, so they're basically the same!
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has EW now, though, so she'll need 30 scatter laser shots to bring her down, that's without accounting for hitting and wounding rolls.
Or things like Psychic powers. Again, I think 200 points for 3 T3 models is reasonable. A Gladius could probably handle her too, with Ultramarine's Doctrines.
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further. Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has Eternal Warrior and one of her two little buddies gets resurrected each owning players turn and wounds must be resolved against them before any can be allocated to Celestine.
So with two of them alive at the beginning of the battle, and it taking around 3 wounds from a scatter laser to kill each one on average (thanks to a 3+ save), that knocks off 6 wounds inflicted on Celestine before you even begin trying to whittle down her 5 wounds through a 2+ save.
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Okay. By that logic, Guildball is crazy overpriced compared to CandyLand or Monopoly. Monopoly even comes with figures you can paint, so they're basically the same!
It's funny that you used the word "logic" then said those words. Monopoly currently costs around £30, whereas SFG make all the rules available for free, as well as print your own components (again, free) so what sort of loser is paying £30 for Monopoly when they can play GB for the cost of some ink and a few sheets of card, amiright?
But of course, we're all just crazy for not colouring in rocks with poster paints and throwing them at each other across a table, so why bother with any sort of sensible comparison?
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further. Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has Eternal Warrior and one of her two little buddies gets resurrected each owning players turn and wounds must be resolved against them before any can be allocated to Celestine.
So with two of them alive at the beginning of the battle, and it taking around 3 wounds from a scatter laser to kill each one on average (thanks to a 3+ save), that knocks off 6 wounds inflicted on Celestine before you even begin trying to whittle down her 5 wounds through a 2+ save.
Yeah, just saw her resurrecting her buddies, that's pretty bananas. Still, do her squad get EW too? Also, she's still just a Jump Infantry with a S5 AP3 sword and a Bolt Pistol. I think she's decent for her points and will be an annoying, fast objective grabber, but I don't think she's that far up the totem of broken stuff.
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
Henry wrote: Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Pretty much the last one. Buying stuff from the FLGS instead of an online discounter is just a roundabout way of paying rent or a membership fee at the store to play at their tables (or to have the convenience of a B&M store.) The main premium of the boxed set is its reduced price, so it's a little counter productive.
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
So we arrive at the "you can't compare anything else to GW because nothing else is GW" cul de sac that this tangent inevitably ends at. Same time next week?
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
.
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance. Yes, I don't know much about GB other than its a fantasy sports game with beautiful miniatures. That sounds like Bloodbowl to me - and for newcomers those two games are going to look similar too (see threads asking if someone should choose Bloodbowl or Guildball to scratch their fantasy sports itch).
So it supposedly plays more like WMH, Malifaux and Infinity. Does that mean it should be compared to 40k instead of Bloodbowl? No I don't think so, comparing it to Bloodbowl is a much better comparison because they have an abundance of surface level similarities. The cost isn't that much different too.
Weirdly, one of us is arguing the points whilst another is throwing ad homs around yet I'm the "horrible individual?" Maybe take people disagreeing with you less personally?
Especially when they're right and have correctly assumed you know little of what you're talking about, even if you do double down on it. Surely you appreciate surface level similarities are the least valid to cite if you're looking to make a substantive argument? But, beyond they're both miniatures games that use a ball, there really aren't many superficial ones either, let alone abundant.
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance.
He's ignored for a reason, try the button you'll love it.
The reason being you kept saying stuff and I kept proving you wrong?
I love it when people feel the need to tell everyone they're ignoring another user, it totally not attention seeking passive aggression in the slightest.
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
So we arrive at the "you can't compare anything else to GW because nothing else is GW" cul de sac that this tangent inevitably ends at. Same time next week
Please don't put words in my mouth... It's not black and white. There's a middle ground between "exactly 40k" and "nothing at all like 40k except both are miniature games". Guild ball is the latter. If you want to make a relevant comparison, at least pick a game like Warpath or Warmachine.
Except I raised the cost of the Guild Ball starter in the context of a discussion Davor initiated about how the various bundles GW has introduced haven't fundamentally addressed the fact that their games are still amongst the most expensive to start and get to a "standard" level.
A context where X Wing had already been mentioned, but evidently has been overlooked in favour of trying to rubbish an equally valid comparison under those criteria.
Well, tell you what, get a handle on the idea that my posting is neither aggressive nor rude and just mayhap a little more abrupt than you'd ideally like people to address you and all our interactions will magically get more good natured.
As for your question, see my earlier response, in the context of the discussion it was a perfectly valid comparison. People need to start acknowledging that any game that gets subsitituted into a time or at a venue that may otherwise be a GW game is valid for comparison, otherwise we get into a spiral where the criteria get narrower and narrower until the whole thing becomes "if it hasn't got Space Marines, it isn't a valid comparison."
Here's a metric for whether it's a valid comparison or not for the thread to consider - if a news and rumours thread was started on Dakka for the game, would it get locked for not being appropriate to the forum?
My posts are aimed at the post, not aimed at the person, so they shouldn't be taken personally, and I haven't got a problem with people thinking differently to me. If total strangers can't handle my not wrapping my posts up in cotton wool so it doesn't hurt so much when I tell them I think they're wrong, the problem doesn't lie with me.
BB is not a better comparison to GB than 40K, because the comparison you're trying to make isn't the one being drawn. In fact, BB is just as valid a comparison to 40K as GB in the context it was originally brought up, just less pertinent as it isn't made by a competitor.
Bottle wrote: You misunderstand, we've not been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with 40k than Guildball is. We've been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with Guildball than 40K is. Is that not something you agree with?
Can you not compare a miniature game with rules and 25 figures with any other miniature game with rules and 25 figures?
Does the fantasy vs scifi vs historical vs sports type really make a difference?
Can we only compare scifi to scifi etc.
Before we know it, we're back to the "you can't compare it as it doesn't have space marines in" argument we so often see.
The tone is getting a little too tense in here, my friends. Please avoid personal attacks and flaming, considering Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thank you!
Bottle wrote: You misunderstand, we've not been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with 40k than Guildball is. We've been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with Guildball than 40K is. Is that not something you agree with?
No, I understand fine, that's not the basis of the comparison that I originally offered GB up as an example of.
Davor's initial claim is that GW employing SC boxes and discount bundles is "smoke and mirrors" because 40K is still just about the most expensive game to start on the market, and that their existence hasn't really change due that.
Wayniac then made the point that, while on a price per model basis WMH can often be more expensive, the whole cost of playing the game is lower because of a lower model count and lower ancillary costs.
Someone mentioned X Wing at some point, which follows a similar idea to WMH i.e. higher model cost isn't offset by lower model count.
The WMH starter was then raised as a further example of low cost of access.
At this point, I then also mentioned the GB starter as another candidate for low cost of access, with the added advantage over the WMH 2 player box that it is even more complete and can be taken beyond a simple starter product for little or no extra cost.
People then got confused and started trying to draw comparisons between different games as experiences rather than simply as a variety of miniatures based games and their relative cost of access, and the fact that while GW are ostensibly lowering prices, they're still not that cheap unless you take GW's already inflated bar as the norm.
As for GB vs BB vs 40K, that, again, comes back to context. I'd argue that GB uses more mechanics that'd be familiar a traditional wargame than BB does, it uses measurement, not squares, it has terrain, and it has the depth of choice of actions for player activations you'd see in skirmish games like Infinity or Malifaux where not only what but when you do stuff can have huge impacts on the turn. While there are only six players a side, each player has a long list of moving parts that have internal and external synergies etc etc
While it undoubtedly has its own flavour, it definitely owes a debt to WMH mechanically, and I don't think you'd find many people arguing BB and WMH are similar games.
Jacksmiles wrote: Isn't Bloodbowl more of a board game? Guild Ball is actually a skirmish wargame, thus more comparable to 40k than Bloodbowl if I'm right.
Pretty much. It's first to 12, instant win as soon as 12 points are scored, 4 points for a goal, 2 points for a "takeout" (reduce an opponent to 0 HP) unless they're a mascot (all the teams have them and one of your 6 players must be one) then they're worth 1 VP.
So there are multiple routes to victory, all takeouts, score three goals, or a combination (teams are often referred to as 3-0, 0-6 etc goals to takeouts) and there's absolutely a sport being represented, but mechanically the game owes much more to acknowledged wargames and skirmish wargame rules than it does to BB. Then you have the playbooks, which is, AFAIK, a unique concept, where the number of hits you generate in an attack opens up an increasing number of choices as to the outcome, from simply damaging the opponent, knocking them down, tackling the ball off them, repositioning them or repositioning yourself, or generating whole other plays.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You make Guildball sound intriguing, so thanks for that.
I've been interested in wargaming since RT era, been playing, on and off, since 2nd Edition, so I've played a lot of different games in that time, some good, some.. not so good. GB is right up there with the best rulesets, and has the advantage of being owned by a company run by gamers who are very focused on keeping things tight and balanced. They've made errors, nobody's perfect, and, as a Hunters Guild player I'm hugely frustrated that the smallest guild has the longest wait for new players now we've reached season 3.
I really didn't want to add a game to the list, I've played a lot of X Wing, I've still got 40K projects on the go, despite not playing in a good while, and I was just winding up to start Hordes with Legion, but one demo game and I now have a fully painted Hunters team, with Union players WIP (The Union is a team in its own right, but certain players can play for other Guilds,) a full match set of painted terrain and a Deep Cut mat to put it on, with a second team (Morticians) awaiting assembly.
The fluff is even intruiging and they recently ran a player event similar to the old GW global campaigns to determine the outcome of a power struggle for leadership of the Butcher's Guild (and would have modified the models they released based on the outcome, we found out after the event.)
It's a young game and experiences the odd hiccup, but if you're even slightly interested, the Kick Off box is a little over £40 from discounters, and you need never spend another penny on it.
There's no season 3 physical rulebook yet (expected at Salute) so this is the only place to get them, still on season 2 fluff till then cause spoilers.
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance.
He's ignored for a reason, try the button you'll love it.
Oh no, someone has a different opinion to me and won't change their mind...
Opinions are fine, see I'm not anywhere near ignoring you.
I'm sure you'll come to realize some people can ruin your forum experience and you don't have to read them.
Perhaps by posting off topic crap like this after people have been warned about playing nice you were just trying to provide an example of this experience ruining behaviour?
On topic, I think I'm close to thinking along the better lines, just not having to read Kirbys ridiculous statements is so refreshing. That new LoC is an absolutely amazing sculpt. Read a black library novel, and it was good!
On topic, I think I'm close to thinking along the better lines, just not having to read Kirbys ridiculous statements is so refreshing. That new LoC is an absolutely amazing sculpt. Read a black library novel, and it was good!
Not sure why, but I read that in the style of Weird Al Yankovic's 'I'll Sue Ya'.
Still excited to see what's coming in the next year. We've seen new Bloodbowl stuff, and a sneakypeaky at the next pitch (WD, it's there, unheralded and unannounced) and, in theory, both Adeptus Titanicus (my first proper proper GW game after Heroquest and Space Crusader) and HH Vol VII.
Already got a smidge of Custodes stuff (5 Custodes, Calladius and a Contemptor), so expecting we'll see even more for them. Currently, they're in my army to keep a watchful eye on my Loyalist Iron Warrior Garrison.
Henry wrote: Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Pretty much the last one. Buying stuff from the FLGS instead of an online discounter is just a roundabout way of paying rent or a membership fee at the store to play at their tables (or to have the convenience of a B&M store.) The main premium of the boxed set is its reduced price, so it's a little counter productive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I normally play older games at my brother's house, which is 30-40 miles away from me. My house has NO room for a table, nor can I really deal with the disruption gamers at the house would cause on my wife and kids, especially my special needs son. In that regard, a game store is REALLY convenient, and I'd love to keep them open so I have a place to game locally or if I'm masochistic enough to play current rules. As previously stated, BFG would probably be the hit that gets me back on the plastic crack pipe.
Henry wrote: Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Pretty much the last one. Buying stuff from the FLGS instead of an online discounter is just a roundabout way of paying rent or a membership fee at the store to play at their tables (or to have the convenience of a B&M store.) The main premium of the boxed set is its reduced price, so it's a little counter productive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I normally play older games at my brother's house, which is 30-40 miles away from me. My house has NO room for a table, nor can I really deal with the disruption gamers at the house would cause on my wife and kids, especially my special needs son. In that regard, a game store is REALLY convenient, and I'd love to keep them open so I have a place to game locally or if I'm masochistic enough to play current rules. As previously stated, BFG would probably be the hit that gets me back on the plastic crack pipe.
I'd like BFG too, but I don't want to see it soon. They are already doing bloodbowl and plan to do Adepticus Titanicus. They may (to my eyes) have improved but they can easily fall into pitfalls and expand too much the range without properly supporting the games.
Henry wrote: Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Pretty much the last one. Buying stuff from the FLGS instead of an online discounter is just a roundabout way of paying rent or a membership fee at the store to play at their tables (or to have the convenience of a B&M store.) The main premium of the boxed set is its reduced price, so it's a little counter productive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I normally play older games at my brother's house, which is 30-40 miles away from me. My house has NO room for a table, nor can I really deal with the disruption gamers at the house would cause on my wife and kids, especially my special needs son. In that regard, a game store is REALLY convenient, and I'd love to keep them open so I have a place to game locally or if I'm masochistic enough to play current rules. As previously stated, BFG would probably be the hit that gets me back on the plastic crack pipe.
I'd like BFG too, but I don't want to see it soon. They are already doing bloodbowl and plan to do Adepticus Titanicus. They may (to my eyes) have improved but they can easily fall into pitfalls and expand too much the range without properly supporting the games.
That's a good point; trying to launch or relaunch too many games simultaneously could end up with none of them getting the necessary support they'd need. Like... if they tried to relaunch Necromunda, Mordheim, BFG, Bloodbowl, and Warmaster (just for example), we could potentially end up in a situation where none of those games has more than 3 or 4 different factions.
Therefore the fall of Cadia should be the finest hours of one of the most famous regiments, with the last stand of the Cadian regiments taking place in a glorious, epic and manly battle.
Instead we have Sisters of Battle (do not get me wrong, they need the loving) and GW's favourite mary sues, the Space Marines.
There's your problem. You have an idea that isn't the reality, like HBMC says, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus, of course, there's the question why wouldn't the Imperium send everything to defend an "iconic IG home world."
Well, they didn't really focus that much on the cadians, did they? Most of the focus was on the supporting forces and the Triumphrate, which Creed wasn't part of. Not to mention that they got rid of him in a pretty disappointing way (gotta catch em all, right Trazyn? Better than dying, I guess, but what a way to get dispose of a character). I'm not saying it was bad, but I do understand Master's angle.
There's your problem. You have an idea that isn't the reality, like HBMC says, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus, of course, there's the question why wouldn't the Imperium send everything to defend an "iconic IG home world."
Well, they didn't really focus that much on the cadians, did they? Most of the focus was on the supporting forces and the Triumphrate, which Creed wasn't part of. Not to mention that they got rid of him in a pretty disappointing way (gotta catch em all, right Trazyn? Better than dying, I guess, but what a way to get dispose of a character).
I'm not saying it was bad, but I do understand Master's angle.
Are you kidding? It's perfect, shift all the oop minis to Trazyns collectors range!
There's your problem. You have an idea that isn't the reality, like HBMC says, that doesn't make it inherently bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus, of course, there's the question why wouldn't the Imperium send everything to defend an "iconic IG home world."
Well, they didn't really focus that much on the cadians, did they? Most of the focus was on the supporting forces and the Triumphrate, which Creed wasn't part of. Not to mention that they got rid of him in a pretty disappointing way (gotta catch em all, right Trazyn? Better than dying, I guess, but what a way to get dispose of a character). I'm not saying it was bad, but I do understand Master's angle.
Are you kidding? It's perfect, shift all the oop minis to Trazyns collectors range!
If you're part of GW's marketing team, sure If that's the case, then its a brilliant business strategy. I would still rather have cyborg angry not-patton though.
But who knows, maybe they'll release him later on, except this time he'll be decked out with dimensional necron tech which allows him to literally summon baneblades and titans from behind rocks and lampposts Let the meme come back to life
But who knows, maybe they'll release him later on, except this time he'll be decked out with dimensional necron tech which allows him to [i]literally summon baneblades and titans from behind rocks and lampposts[i]
Let the meme come back to life
That would require far more self-awareness than GW is capable of, I'm afraid.
But who knows, maybe they'll release him later on, except this time he'll be decked out with dimensional necron tech which allows him to [i]literally summon baneblades and titans from behind rocks and lampposts[i] Let the meme come back to life
That would require far more self-awareness than GW is capable of, I'm afraid.
I for one am looking forward to the day when GW just completely gives up and starts copying /tg/ The warhammer 40k rulebook would just have an angry marine flipping the bird on the front cover.
But who knows, maybe they'll release him later on, except this time he'll be decked out with dimensional necron tech which allows him to [i]literally summon baneblades and titans from behind rocks and lampposts[i]
Let the meme come back to life
That would require far more self-awareness than GW is capable of, I'm afraid.
I for one am looking forward to the day when GW just complete gives up and starts copying /tg/
The warhammer 40k rulebook would just have an angry flipping the bird on the front cover.
And then someone would start a thread like this asking whether it's an improvement or not, and this whole argument and derail into minutiae would start all over again.
I certainly wouldn't mind a bit of the dark humour creeping back into 40k. They've become so far consumed by the grim darkness of the 41st millennium to realize that the absurd humour of it all is what made that grim darkness fun.
Korinov wrote: In order for the dark humor to work, you need somewhat competent writers. GW has lacked those for a long while.
I don't think that would work even with competent writers. The whole flavour of the systems moved from a style that's overall quite grim but still has that subdued British humour towards something that takes its grimdarkness way too serious (and that's not a recent development). I think Murderfang, or however he's called is a good example. GW used to include humorous references to other work or real history in their work and it was all a bit cheeky and in good fun but then somebody started taking it seriously. It's become a grimdark cargo cult where each new thing has to be grimmer and darker and something relatively normal doesn't cut it anymore.
I think for it to work they would need to recalibrate the intensity of it all and not just write better.
Yup. There's an interview with Rick Priestly, in which he pretty much says that during the 90s the new writers didn't quite get the ironic vibe and dark humor from the original setting and instead became Space Marines' biggest fans. In short, the joke was lost, and then promptly shot to death with over 9000 grimdark and super serious bolter rounds.
IMO it's a bit telling when 3rd edition is many times regarded as the true, first "grimdark" edition of the game. The grimdark was there from the very beginning, in fact the Rogue Trader rulebook is one of the most grimdark things out there.
Ironically, as I see it today, it's got to the point where 40k works really well as a background, but quite awfully as a space fantasy story. The original rulebook drove home the point that the galaxy is a huge brutal place and nobody cares if you die or not. You won't be remembered. I'd rather have that than the superhero battles of more recent times, with painful character-building throw in between.
The Heresy also worked great as a piece of background of which not too much was known about (because it happened 10k years in the past). Then came all those novels. Seriously, I could take a dump on my keyboard and would produce something better than like half of them.
Well, it goes far beyond just the humour. I think another one of the most telling examples, and better arguments, for the decline of GW's writing is the retcon(s) of Ollanius Pius. Ollanius' (tiny) story was genuinely captivating, even beyond appreciation for the 40k universe. The irony of it all being that GW's attempts to keep making him more and more badass ended up taking away everything that made him cool in the first place. Now he's just another generic superhuman badass in a world that is already overflowing with superhuman badasses.
It's funny (sad), because that's the same mindset being carried forward into a lot of things with GW. Everything has to one-up everything else around it, to the point that all sense of scale and humanity is lost.
One of the aspects that drew me to the Daemonhunters and Grey Knights nearly a decade ago was the idea of these solitary, recognizably human (we'll let the whole 'space marines are tank-wearing demigods' bit slide for a second) characters fighting against overwhelmingly numerous and massive foes (one of my favourite sequences in film, the fight between Prince Phillip and Maleficent of Disney's Sleeping Beauty, goes on to illustrate this idea perfectly). The first picture that sold me on them was that of a small brotherhood of GKT amid a massive ocean of daemons. Of course, when the 5th edition codex came out, that all ended up turned on its head. Not only had the mystery and sense of subtlety behind the Grey Knights been completely lost with fluff that went far deeper into detail than it should have (detail that could have never been as rewarding as the mystery originally suggested, even disregarding how bad Ward's fluff ended up being), but units like the Dreadknight just flew right in the face of that original concept that made the Grey Knights so cool in the first place.
The writing staff are just completely out of touch with the ideas of what makes good world building and narrative, not just humour.
Fafnir wrote: Of course, when the 5th edition codex came out, that all ended up turned on its head. Not only had the mystery and sense of subtlety behind the Grey Knights been completely lost with fluff that went far deeper into detail than it should have
This is a core problem IMHO. There is an almost pornographic will to reveal every detail, killing te mystery. Look what they did to Dark Angels. I do wonder what will happen with the primarchs returning.
Also, the concept that everything must one-up what came before creeped into rule writings with the effects we witness today.
This is what happens when you hire fanboys instead of creators.
I'll enjoy a book you might despise. Doesn't make either of us right, or indeed wrong, and certainly doesn't mean the book or author is poor.
Non GW example? Star Wars Aftermath. I'm two out of three books in. For me, the plot is good, the writer's style (Chuck Wendig) was a little jarring at first. Some love them, some hate them. For me, despite the style of writing being a little odd, they're still far better and more grounded than the majority of the old Expanded Universe. YMMV of course, but that's perfectly natural.
GW wise? Some of the novels I don't enjoy. I seriously struggle with Dan Abnett's Fantasy work - to me it's just not the Warhammer World I know and love - but I absolutely adore Gotrek and Felix, even Giantslayer, aka Gotrek and Felix And The Contractural Obligation, when you could kind of tell William King's heart just wasn't in it.
To a degree, but the field of literary criticism exists for a reason. There are generally-accepted ideas about what makes good writing, even if some of the more subtle details come down to personal preferences.
You take that back about Sir Terry right now young man!
Do it, or I'll set Rincewind on you!
As for literary critics? At what point do generally accepted ideas become outright snobbery? ( no accusation against fellow posters - remember I consider it all incredibly subjective!)
To stick with the Sir Terry Pratchett theme, a case in point.
But to introduce a further topic to this topic of topics...GW are also offering a wider variety of games, and at fairly pleasing monetary cost.
You've got very small board games, such as Gorechosen and Lost Patrol, both of which can be played on a regular dining table with space to spare. You've got more traditional dungeoneering type games in Execution Force, Deathwatch et al.
To us as established gamers, they're a nice source of cheap models for new ventures or existing collections. For Spod In The Street, they're a highly cost effective way of seeing what's what. Now, that won't necessarily lead Spod In The Street down the darkpath we've trodden - but it certainly doesn't hurt any. £35 in the till is £35 quid in the till after all - and even if only one in ten picks up the hobby proper? Totally worth it.
I would agree that Terry Pratchett is rather light hearted and easy to read, but I don't think he deserves to be compared with third rate GW-IP-driven litterary works.
Good writers don't write for GW and GW's IP, although fun and all, isn't exactly a work of art.
I'd say time is going to be very kind to Sir Terry.
His novels are all pretty superb - and you can really see him not only developing his world, but his skills as a writer. I mean, compare The Colour of Magic to Snuff - same world, same author. But Snuff is without a doubt a far superior work. And that increase in talent and ability can be charted across all of Discworld.
I also highly recommend the Tiffany Aching sequence. Absolutely superb, even though they're suggested for 'younger readers'.
Don't get me wrong, he's my favorite author of all time, he has great ideas, tells a great story and his books will always be special to me, but they do seem, on the other hand, to be pretty simple and not all that well written. Part of my impression might be down to the publication - I've never seen any books beyond GW that have as many typos or printing errors as the early Discworld books, and part of it might be down to reading age - Discworld is great for younger readers (I did a few papers on them when I was about 16-17).
Without going too far off topic, I'm just using it as an example that shows you can enjoy something that's technically not very good. I also loved Sharknado, but I defy you to find anyone that regards it as an example of good film making
Unfortunately, I think Black Library seems to have lost what made them great to read despite being poorly done, and now just have the poorly done part. They've replaced the vaguely believable grimdark humour with bolterporn. I loved the Caiphas Caine books where he's being portrayed as a hero of the imperium when in reality he's a workshy coward who just keeps ending up in hairy situations and getting away with it. Or Gaunts Ghosts where they seem genuinely human and struggle from time to time, carrying out crappy missions in all sorts of gakholes.
Catching up with suff on the forums, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
Catching up with suff on the forums, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
Catching up with suff on the s, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means 7-0 to fantasy. Even though he manipulated entirely the numbers (counting the introduction in AoS and ignoring the bits that had 40k/AoS mixed releases)
Also, herjan, didn't you say that tzeentch arcanites would come in square bases on warseer?
Well, I was thinking GW was trying to turn the ship around, but they doubled down on this "Gathering Storm", Herohammering 40K with a plethora of super-sized characters and the referal to Aeldari for the Storm 2 preview.
They're not trying to steer the listing ship around, they are defiantly ramping up to flank speed and attempting to plow through the iceberg.
Catching up with suff on the s, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means 7-0 to fantasy. Even though he manipulated entirely the numbers (counting the introduction in AoS and ignoring the bits that had 40k/AoS mixed releases)
Also, herjan, didn't you say that tzeentch arcanites would come in square bases on warseer?
First I like your attitude of the counting! Long live Fantasy!
Secondly I never said they will come on square I said I will interested, IF they come on sqaures!
Catching up with suff on the s, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means 7-0 to fantasy. Even though he manipulated entirely the numbers (counting the introduction in AoS and ignoring the bits that had 40k/AoS mixed releases)
Also, herjan, didn't you say that tzeentch arcanites would come in square bases on warseer?
Catching up with suff on the s, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means 7-0 to fantasy. Even though he manipulated entirely the numbers (counting the introduction in AoS and ignoring the bits that had 40k/AoS mixed releases)
Also, herjan, didn't you say that tzeentch arcanites would come in square bases on warseer?
First I like your attitude of the counting! Long live Fantasy!
Secondly I never said they will come on square I said I will interested, IF they come on sqaures!
Catching up with suff on the s, thats the reason for the late reply:
I love that video!!!! It really shows how good things are going. While 40k is recieved only around one minute of advertisment, Age of Sigmar needed 4 minutes and 40 seconds.... Most of the minis where AoS related and not 40k. I do believe that speaks for its self.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means 7-0 to fantasy. Even though he manipulated entirely the numbers (counting the introduction in AoS and ignoring the bits that had 40k/AoS mixed releases)
Also, herjan, didn't you say that tzeentch arcanites would come in square bases on warseer?
First I like your attitude of the counting! Long live Fantasy!
Secondly I never said they will come on square I said I will interested, IF they come on sqaures!
Thirdly Shrinos is the man!
Also what am I doing that's deserving of praise?
Yes I still keep the count only Lord Kragan joined in the jolly fellow.
Also never regret being praised. You deserve it just for asking interesting questions on my posts.
ON Topic: I do see and apriciate that GW is doing the right things as a company, but that doesnt equals, that I am satiesfied as a customer.
Stormonu wrote: Well, I was thinking GW was trying to turn the ship around, but they doubled down on this "Gathering Storm", Herohammering 40K with a plethora of super-sized characters and the referal to Aeldari for the Storm 2 preview.
They're not trying to steer the listing ship around, they are defiantly ramping up to flank speed and attempting to plow through the iceberg.
Honestly, even being the cynic that I am, I doubt that. Everything feels so aimless and unfocused that they probably just have no idea what direction they're moving in at all, and everyone's paddling a different way.
Apologies if already covered, but I'm finding it pleasingly 'GW Of Yesteryear' that they're running video articles on converting up Bloodbowl teams.
Given they've been pretty dedicated over the past few years to a 'no gaps' range, that's something I never thought we'd see again.
Also hoping they make good on their promise to me, via a letter published in WD (yeah!) to do Terrain building articles - even if it is mainly kitbashing their own range.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Apologies if already covered, but I'm finding it pleasingly 'GW Of Yesteryear' that they're running video articles on converting up Bloodbowl teams.
Given they've been pretty dedicated over the past few years to a 'no gaps' range, that's something I never thought we'd see again.
Also hoping they make good on their promise to me, via a letter published in WD (yeah!) to do Terrain building articles - even if it is mainly kitbashing their own range.
Lord Kragan wrote: Dude, you're a swole bro. You always deserve praise for being a chill fellow.
I'll third this!
Anyway, going back on-topic, loving GW's work as of late and hope they continue the good work. I also hope they start really looking at the background of AoS as they've recently been doing.
My money's awaiting a rpg book, GW.
Besides that, looking forward to when all this "what's going to happen to 40k!?" business is finally over.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Perry figures would also work very well for Game of Thrones, especially the armies of the main Westeros kingdoms.
They'd be perfect for A Song of Ice and Fire, which is based on GRRM's obsession with medieval knights and War of the Roses backstabbery. (Search for his site and look at his model collection.) Lots of guys at the Lead Adventure Forum have been using Perry minis for that for ages. Ironically, even Bretonnian minis might be better proxies for that story, compared to the strange LotRish costumes in the GoT TV adaptation.
Original topic? PfffIdunno. It's been well hashed out ignored and repeated (and ignored and repeated and ignored and repeated) over the last 50 pages. I like genestealer hybrids, the return of the IoB minis, and oval bases. Little else.
So has GW gotten better? They show a little flash, (social media) open their mouths a bit (communication) and that got them for people to purchase more (me included) and now they decide they can go back to their old ways and have price increases again?
While it's on one box of reboxing (could be more not sure) it's not a sign you want to give when you are trying to show good will.
Davor wrote: So has GW gotten better? They show a little flash, (social media) open their mouths a bit (communication) and that got them for people to purchase more (me included) and now they decide they can go back to their old ways and have price increases again?
While it's on one box of reboxing (could be more not sure) it's not a sign you want to give when you are trying to show good will.
Agree. It doesn't give me hope after the recent trends with pricing. It's three boxes, but if it becomes a regular trend of price "normalizing" with each rebox, I will not be happy. On the plus side the Tzeentch demon SC box becomes an insane deal
This is, or has been, their stated pricing policy for some time. They abandoned price rises in favour of increasing pricing with new releases, one assumes that, following that policy, they're not going to be shy about relaunching existing products to give them a little bump.
Azreal13 wrote: This is, or has been, their stated pricing policy for some time. They abandoned price rises in favour of increasing pricing with new releases, one assumes that, following that policy, they're not going to be shy about relaunching existing products to give them a little bump.
They did that from the start of their new policy too. IIRC, Dire Avengers were relaunched when they made that announcment, or very close to it, with a box of 5, down from 10, with no price change. It was a 100% price increase to remove 1 sprue from the set.
Azreal13 wrote: This is, or has been, their stated pricing policy for some time. They abandoned price rises in favour of increasing pricing with new releases, one assumes that, following that policy, they're not going to be shy about relaunching existing products to give them a little bump.
They did that from the start of their new policy too. IIRC, Dire Avengers were relaunched when they made that announcment, or very close to it, with a box of 5, down from 10, with no price change. It was a 100% price increase to remove 1 sprue from the set.
Wow, that is even worse than what they did with the Lord of the Rings release right before The Hobbit came out. GW does have no shame. Oh well. At least GW is finally acting like the Devil we do know than the Devil we don't know.
I'm not happy about the 0rice bump on the tzeentch daemons. That said the rest of the release is in line e with current pricing (uk/us anyway) or cheaper than current pricing by a significant margin. Personally I think this has to do with the Start Collecting box more than anything since unlike Khorne & Nurgle tzeentch lacked a big and expensive flashy elite unit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But guys! They have a Twitch channel... behind a Citadel Paeywall™! That makes everything ok!
I can never understand paying for a companies advertising. I think it's funny people will say and even GW will say, "don't like it don't get it." Thing is, if I don't get it, how are you advertising to me then? WTF
Most Twitch channels I know offer a subscription based service that comes with extra perks for members. In a lot of ways the fine folks at Rooster Teeth do the same thing (with a few exclusives).
Those streamers then have YouTube channels where a few days later edited down highlights or specific videos are uploaded for everyone to watch.
If GW wants to use their YouTube channel to put up edited or the odd bit of Twitch content, then that would be ok, but unlike other streamers GW's Twitch is advertising, and paying for another company to advertise to you is a mug's game.
Wait for january, maybe the Arcanites have a solid stuff.
