Go here to read all about it:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228304

There's also a post by Gav Thorpe! I feel like I've seen jesus!

My God, it feels as if last edition was only yesterday....

Im guessing this is a good thing as I always read fantasy players saying 40k is balanced compared to fantasy..

Guess I better buy Battle for Skull pass now eh?

This is the full quote from Warseer, that was actually nicked from BOLS

"Not to drop a bomb or anything, but yes, 8th edition will be out next summer with a new boxed set in the fall. I’ve heard Empire vs. Orks in the box with a new O&G book out in Q1 2010. Plastic Empire Knights and Orc Boar boys will be in the new set I’ve heard. They keep one-upping themselves with the box sets so I would expect a mountain of amazing plastics in the new starter set."

A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle). The contents of the box is also the same armies as 6th Ed. Bit boring?

Gav posts fairly frequently over on warseer. Mostly it's answering things aimed at him, which I guess means he must follow threads

I don't care when it is, or what order the new army books are in.... as long as they get the books bound at somewhere different to where they have since the HE book.

The damned things fall apart after a few days.

Also GO ORCS!

I suppose Orcs, Dwarfs and Empire are oft mentioned as being out of touch with Daemons, Vampires et al. Perhaps they feel the need to revisit them for this reason.

Expect there to be some kind of new Orc war machine that costs £35. A troll lobber or something...

This would be very cool if true!

Flashman wrote:I suppose Orcs, Dwarfs and Empire are oft mentioned as being out of touch with Daemons, Vampires et al. Perhaps they feel the need to revisit them for this reason.

Expect there to be some kind of new Orc war machine that costs £35. A troll lobber or something...

Well it was mentioned in the other thread that Demons and Dark Elves took the top 10 spots in the u.k. GT. Not that GW gives a rat's ass about balance.

I think this isn't a great idea.
They should finish updating all the books in a cycle before going on to a new edition.

I would, however, like plastic boar boyz on boars that look like the Warboss boar.

The warhammer army book cycle is too long a period for GW to resist being able to fiddle with the core rules in the meantime.

Not that they will do much. Change one spell in Lore of Life and make using the Realm of Battle gaming board compulsory

Just nerf the bloody daemons with it.

And if they had a bit more enlightened self interest, they'd grasp that people with armies at the bottom of the food chain get disillusioned and pack in the game faster becoming far less interested in playing in the knowledge of losing.

They've been pulling this gak for years, they need to get it together on balance and army book release schedule.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Just nerf the bloody daemons with it.

How though? Change regeneration saves to a 5+? That would sort out the indestructable Plague Bearers perhaps?

Personally I'd like to see impact hits for cavalry at last - horses don't attack you with their hooves, they run you over! And some kind of psycological impact of flaming attacks rather than just cancelling out regeneration and incinerating mummies and treemen.

MGS, what is going on with your Avatar? We can barely see the great Brian Blessed in that pic.

*ahem* it's a little change for Halloween, it's his Unbeatable Banzuke advert.

Behold his Blessedness
http://www.artillery-design.tv/portfolio/promos/banzuke_clip.html

Hmmm...

Imagine buying Skull Pass and The new Starter.

OnG Heaven!

I'm lookin' forward too it!

As for the new edition?

Just nerf Daemons, honestly.

I am very pleased to hear mention of new boar sculpts, the old ones and the wolves are looking very ropey nowadays.

Was the last edition 2005?

Da Boss wrote:They should finish updating all the books in a cycle before going on to a new edition.

I could care less how often they update the main rulebook.

However, I think they should have a rule that army books get updated with some predictable regularity.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Da Boss wrote:They should finish updating all the books in a cycle before going on to a new edition.

I could care less how often they update the main rulebook.

However, I think they should have a rule that army books get updated with some predictable regularity.

They cant Because all they tell you is a lie.
Or does that just apply for 40k?

Hrm. If it's next summer, mayhaps I'll hold off on putting together my Empire army until it comes out.

Anyone have wild speculations as to what they will fix? I somehow doubt anything drastic will change. They'll probably just incorporate most of the current FAQs into it. Hope they don't go full pendulum swing with the O&G book.

In theory, GW should make Halberds playable, and Detachments simpler.

Well, I know if they changed the magic rules to requiring a minimum of 2 dice to cast, they'd fix some problems.

But 6th/7th edition wasn't a real change, overall. So what will the next edition clarify/change?

We know Chaos Dwarves will be receiving a new update, and Skaven are just now being released. What's going to change?

IMO, casting on 1 die isn't the biggest problem in WFB at the moment.

Brick infantry is the biggest problem, because there don't seem to be enough advantages for wanting to take them. And even then, the problem is that you only take them 5-wide, and the different bases cause weird frontage problems. Weird problem for a game supposedly about ranked combat...

JohnHwangDD wrote:In theory, GW should make Halberds playable

Yeah!

JohnHwangDD wrote: and Detachments simpler.

Ugh!

Just say no to oversimplifying and fixing things that aren't broken!

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new beginners set and see what's in store. This would be why the Empire/O&G are getting Brigades in January I suppose.

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

Think those two were experiments and anyway the Chaos Dwarfs book was just a collection of WD articles with a cover. Bull Centaurs, honestly!

Flashman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

Think those two were experiments and anyway the Chaos Dwarfs book was just a collection of WD articles with a cover. Bull Centaurs, honestly!

I like Bull Centaurs and eagerly await to see what they will look like now that GW (more or less) can sculpt a bit better than the first few go-rounds...

Alpharius wrote:
I like Bull Centaurs and eagerly await to see what they will look like now that GW (more or less) can sculpt a bit better than the first few go-rounds...

With respect Alpharius, what can you do with a dwarf on the body of a horse?

Flashman wrote:

Alpharius wrote:
I like Bull Centaurs and eagerly await to see what they will look like now that GW (more or less) can sculpt a bit better than the first few go-rounds...

With respect Alpharius, what can you do with a dwarf on the body of a horse?

I don't know, just ask Catherine the Great, right?

All kidding aside, I want GW to update Dragon Ogres and the entire Chaos Dwarf line. I think they'd be fantastic!

Yep, Dragon Ogres could do with a Shaggoth type sculpt, slightly smaller obviously.

Great, more rules to not learn for a game I rarely play. Would that Fantasy was more to me than griping about the rules every nine months. Chronicles 2006 is my bible.

Picking up Skull Pass this month.

Flashman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

Think those two were experiments and anyway the Chaos Dwarfs book was just a collection of WD articles with a cover. Bull Centaurs, honestly!

Really?

I have a bound & printed Army Book that says Dogs of War weren't an experiment, but an actual army

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Flashman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

Think those two were experiments and anyway the Chaos Dwarfs book was just a collection of WD articles with a cover. Bull Centaurs, honestly!

Really?

I have a bound & printed Army Book that says Dogs of War weren't an experiment, but an actual army

There are a few armies I regard as experiments on the part of GW, Dogs of War, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms. Some of them have worked, others abandoned after they had run their course. The main problem with Dogs of War was that it enabled other armies to cancel out their weaknesses and GW (possibly rightly) decided that wasn't the way to go.

Dogs of War were best as an army in and of themselves- I'd love to see both them and Chaos Dwarves make a comeback.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Flashman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:A new Orcs and Goblins book would be the first time that GW have broken the warhammer fantasy army book cycle (i.e. releasing an army book before all the races have been catered for in that cycle)

The first time since the last (6th) edition yes? When Chaos Dwarves (Dwarfs?) and Dogs of War failed to get a book.

Think those two were experiments and anyway the Chaos Dwarfs book was just a collection of WD articles with a cover. Bull Centaurs, honestly!

Really?

I have a bound & printed Army Book that says Dogs of War weren't an experiment, but an actual army

This is bizarre, you've just told me in another thread that in 40k only popular armies get updates on a regular basis and that if I didn't like it, I should leave the game?

Dogs of War was not a huge success, they are now no longer viable because of too few sales. Guess my advice to you is the same as that which you just offered me...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Core armies get updates more frequently than others. That's a fact.

Armies are NOT equal. Never have been, never will be. If you can't deal with it, you know where the door is. Try not to let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

The idea that the support is improper is odd. If the army gets an update, it's supported.

Your army was unpopular and GW couldn't be bothered to support it, you got squatted. If you don't like that and feel that your miniatures are sitting there gathering dust, I guess you should find that very same door mate.

What's interesting to me is that here and on 'Seer I have not seen a single post whining about 8th edition Fantasy but whenever GW announce a new 40k, even with the 6year gap between 3rd and 4th people get all up in arms over it.

If Fantasy is as balanced as people say it is and 40k needs major overhauls to get right, which people seem to think GW can't do, than wouldn't it piss people off more to shell out money for a new rulebook every 4 years that might constitute a few pages worth of rules changes vs a book that changes 95% of the rules.

After all, not all the Fantasy armies by my understanding have been updated to 7th yet.

Do 40k players just whine that much more?

Fantasy changes to the main rulebook don't tend to invalidate models, as Fantasy is less WYSIWYG dependant and 'upgrade' characters don't really exist in Fantasy, so you're less likely to have models you can't use when the rules are updated unlike in 40k

Vete pal cara..... I haven't even play a game in 7th and 8th is rolling around damn.

I just want to see my beloved yet tragically gimped Orges redone, although O&G certainly need a new book too.


...and for them to nerf daemons, or just make the army illegal and say it was a joke

Just so long as Gav has nothing to do with the rules...

I'll be happy to see a new O&G book myself.

@MGS: Perhaps you need to put brain in gear while reading?

In the other thread, I said that there's no hard promise for uniform updates to 40k Codices. That's clearly supported by simple fact and observation, something a primary schooler could be made to understand.

In this thread, I'm saying that DoW & CD weren't "experiments" if they reached the full Army Book stage. DoW clearly reached that stage. Ergo, they're not an experiment in like a Storm of Chaos or Eye of Terror campaign army.

Simple distinction, IMO.


Now in the case of DoW, obviously, they wouldn't be updated as often as Empire. I'm completely OK with that.


And until such time as GW prints a DoW book, I'm staying out of WFB.

So I guess I actually am following my own advice.

Imagine that, consistency!

JohnHwangDD wrote:@MGS: Perhaps you need to put brain in gear while reading?

In the other thread, I said that there's no hard promise for uniform updates to 40k Codices. That's clearly supported by simple fact and observation, something a primary schooler could be made to understand.

In this thread, I'm saying that DoW & CD weren't "experiments" if they reached the full Army Book stage. DoW clearly reached that stage. Ergo, they're not an experiment in like a Storm of Chaos or Eye of Terror campaign army.

Simple distinction, IMO.


Now in the case of DoW, obviously, they wouldn't be updated as often as Empire. I'm completely OK with that.


And until such time as GW prints a DoW book, I'm staying out of WFB.

So I guess I actually am following my own advice.

Imagine that, consistency!

Thank you for your kind words, are you missing HBMC especially today or something?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Brick infantry is the biggest problem, because there don't seem to be enough advantages for wanting to take them. And even then, the problem is that you only take them 5-wide, and the different bases cause weird frontage problems. Weird problem for a game supposedly about ranked combat...

Ranks vs. base size poses a conundrum, to which I propose a simple fix. 20mm wide base, 5 to a rank. 25mm wide, 4 to a rank. 40mm wide, 3 to a rank. Anything on a base 50mm wide, or classified as a monster, may neither form ranks nor join units. (TK would keep their special rule for ranked chariot units, because it's special.)

And I wish they'd go back to redirecting charges, because it really was a lot simpler than Enemy in the Way turned out to be.

Are you listening, GW?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Thank you for your kind words, are you missing HBMC especially today or something?

No problem, et tu?

FWIW, today's same as everyday, tho it's a bit odd we got into it. I chalk it up to general unease recovering from illness.

Besides, I'm always "missing" HMBC because I generally don't read him.
____

@fellblade: That's a sensible solution, that should have been implemented for 7th Ed. However, now that 25mm bases require 5-wide, 20mm would need to be at least 6-wide. And really, maintaining the status quo of 5-wide for 25mm based infantry doesn't drive more sales of brick infantry, so you'd need to bump them to 6-wide for 25mm, meaning 7-wide for 20mm... I could see this, because, with one fell swoop, "horde" armies go from 20-model minimum (5x4) to 30-model minimum (7x4).

Fateweaver wrote:Do 40k players just whine that much more?

Hmm they've got reason to. All thopse stupid rules designed around getting 2 year olds into playing now.
But in some respects WHFB players have reasons to as well, but thankfuly such a huge change in the basic rules system hasnt happened there. My main gripe is the change to MoT and not able to have chaos warriors, daemons and beasts of chaos in one big warband now
Oh and I prefer pure sword n sorcery, this cannons, explosives etc stuff has a place I suppose and thats only in dwarf armies

Flashman wrote:I suppose Orcs, Dwarfs and Empire are oft mentioned as being out of touch with Daemons, Vampires et al. Perhaps they feel the need to revisit them for this reason.

Expect there to be some kind of new Orc war machine that costs £35. A troll lobber or something...

I'll give this a crack.

Waaagh Mobile.

CORE 1+:

M10 WS4, BS3, ST6, T7, I5, A(special), W10, LD10.

1+ armour save
4+ Ward save
Regeneration
Always Strikes First

Attacks: 2d6+1 St6 impact hits (armour piercing,flaming, magical) and 2d6+1 St 6 attacks per combat phase (armour piercing,flaming, magical).

WAAAGH Power!: All units in the army turn a squabble animosity result into a Waaagh! result and move 2d6 forward rather than 1d6. If a Natural Waaagh is rolled... move forward 3d6. Any unit affected that moves into combat that phase will have Always Strikes First.

Also each shooting phase all enemy units within 12 inches are hit with a green zzzap of Waaagh Power and take 2d6 St6 hits (armour piercing, flaming, magical), and if a unit takes a wound must take a panic test). This still occurs even if the Waaagh Mobile is in combat and enemy units in combat may be affected. LOS is not needed.

Counts as a warmachine.

Unbreakable

180 points

Its like I'm chanelling the development team for the last 4 books....

To clarify : the orc and goblin book should hit early 2011, not 2010, as it will, of course, be amongst the first few of the books for the new system.

Most, if not all, of the armies* should have had/get an update for the current rules by the time the new rules hit.

*Don't really follow that much fantasy myself, so a bit of leeway here please.

And no, Dogs of War will not be getting one AFAIK.. I think they really are "squatted" for the foreseeable future.

By my reckoning we have the following books left in the current cycle.

Beasts of Chaos
Tomb Kings
Ogre Kingdoms
Wood Elves
Bretonnia

Beasts of Chaos are clearly on the horizon with Tomb Kings mooted as the one to arrive after that. That leaves three to be released before Orcs and Goblins in Q1 2011.

My opinion is that at least two of the three are going to be gazumped (i.e. released after Orcs and Goblins).

I get the feeling that unless the ruleset really changes things, it will be a while before the wood elves get a new book.

They got a hell of a lot of plastic the last time around. And that seems to be what drives the book releases more than when the previous book came out.

Wood Elves and Bretonnia both continue to work well, so I'd imagine it'd be those two shunted back by the Greenies.

Ogres and Tomb Kings sorely need it. They suffer from not only aging badly, but also having been released as new armies during the 'no model, no entry' era of design theory, meaning they don't have a great deal of variety right now.

Existing models wise, Ogres are fine and dandy, one of the nicer ranges out there barring the inexplicably spank Butcher, whereas Tomb Kings do need some work (VC Skellies are superior in every possible way). So I reckon TK then Ogreses.

Harry seems to hinting towards a third Warhammer army release before 8th hits next year, after BoC and Tomb Kings.
Due to the plastics already available they could probably squeeze Ogres in just before hand with out needing a large minatures release. Its certainly a possibility.

Shame its going to be Empires/Orcs again in the box, thats three times for Greenskins and twice for Empire, would have been nice to see something new. Although its possible with the Goblins from Skull Pass sitting in a box, I'd have a relatively cheap 1500pt Orc army available this time next year, so could be a bonus.

Other than that, bring it on. I'm happy to look at a new edition.

Hmm I just made the switch from O&G to Lizardmen because I was sick of rolling 1's and 6's......maybe a new book will bring back my love?

Jin wrote: Hope they don't go full pendulum swing with the O&G book.

What I predict:
1) O&G magic gets hit hard, either in their favor or against.
2) Goblins get the Skaven treatment (1/2 point upgrades).
3) Magic items are re-written. Some options are made better, most are either removed or completely re-written to be less powerful than they are now (Shaga's Screaming Sword probably will be reduced to something like +1S and +1A if any characters get within 12" of the bearer, Tricksy Trinket becomes re-roll successful Wards, Martog's Best Basha is +10pts in cost at least).
4) Panic Chart is re-written. Either only Goblins not cause panic, only Black Orcs ignore panic from fleeing units, or something similar.
5) Black Orcs, Big 'Uns and Boar Boyz go up in points. Again.
6) Hero / Unit Level Special Characters. Borgut might make a return. Those characters with (relatively) recent models (Grimgor, Azhag, Skarsnik, Gorbad) are kept. Grom might go missing again.
7) Something is done to the animosity chart. Maybe it's removed and made like 40K (Orcs function as normal, once per game can declare a Waaagh! that adds D6 to charge range, but a roll of a one causes D6 casualties to a unit), maybe it goes back to last edition's set, maybe it gets modifiers depending on the unit. But odds are something is going to be done with it.

EDIT: 8) Snotlings become useful again.

Fateweaver wrote:What's interesting to me is that here and on 'Seer I have not seen a single post whining about 8th edition Fantasy but whenever GW announce a new 40k, even with the 6year gap between 3rd and 4th people get all up in arms over it.

If Fantasy is as balanced as people say it is and 40k needs major overhauls to get right, which people seem to think GW can't do, than wouldn't it piss people off more to shell out money for a new rulebook every 4 years that might constitute a few pages worth of rules changes vs a book that changes 95% of the rules.

After all, not all the Fantasy armies by my understanding have been updated to 7th yet.

Do 40k players just whine that much more?

Most of the balance issues from the books tend to come from individual army books (imo) than the core set. With some exceptions (ranking as mentioned), the core rules are pretty sound with just a need for some tweaking. IIRC, 7th's biggest change was the move to frontage of 5 for rank bonuses. As skyth also mentions - the rules on weapons tends to change less as well, making core rule changes not usually horrible.

My personal wishes for changes-
Focus on infantry blocks as JHDD suggests.
De-emphasis on Hero-hammer/Monster-hammer (this would really be more of a Army Book-based change, though they could implement some benefits to bigger infantry blocks).
Re-worked CC To Hit Table (not gonna happen, but I can dream, dammit).
Wouldn't mind regular bows/longbows being a bit better, but don't really care about this too much.

Biggest changes in 7th also included the Magic shake up, which prevented lower levelled casters just acting as Batteries for the big boys spells.

Oh, and the building rules, which are pretty sweet in my opinion!

As for imbalances in the books, in my experience rather than a book being inherently flawed, it's more specific builds people can take. Daemons for example, have a few inherently horrible builds popular on the Tournament circuit. When not being played with those lists, the army is good fun to play against.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Harry seems to hinting towards a third Warhammer army release before 8th hits next year, after BoC and Tomb Kings.
Due to the plastics already available they could probably squeeze Ogres in just before hand with out needing a large minatures release. Its certainly a possibility.

Shame its going to be Empires/Orcs again in the box, thats three times for Greenskins and twice for Empire, would have been nice to see something new. Although its possible with the Goblins from Skull Pass sitting in a box, I'd have a relatively cheap 1500pt Orc army available this time next year, so could be a bonus.

Other than that, bring it on. I'm happy to look at a new edition.

really didn't hear that over at warseer. i would have guessed daemons would be in it due to the fact that they are ridiculously newb friendly.

EDIT: ahh you have that a bit wrong he started a thread (we are thinking of the same harry right?) on warseer he was quoting someone from BoLS who said:

"blahblahblah 8th ed fantasy out summer 2010 with new starter set in fall, ive heard orcs and goblins and empire will feature, with O&G getting an update q1 2010.blahblahblah"

not a very reliable source as O&G aren't coming in 2010.


also @JHDD and MGS: could you guys stop arguing about petty things,no offense but its getting a bit pathetic.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Biggest changes in 7th also included the Magic shake up, which prevented lower levelled casters just acting as Batteries for the big boys spells.

Oh, and the building rules, which are pretty sweet in my opinion!

As for imbalances in the books, in my experience rather than a book being inherently flawed, it's more specific builds people can take. Daemons for example, have a few inherently horrible builds popular on the Tournament circuit. When not being played with those lists, the army is good fun to play against.

If the book as two or three inherently horrible builds, the book is inherently flawed.

twistinthunder wrote:
also @JHDD and MGS: could you guys stop arguing about petty things,no offense but its getting a bit pathetic.

Ahem... yes you two, please try and be friends.

twistinthunder wrote:
really didn't hear that over at warseer. i would have guessed daemons would be in it due to the fact that they are ridiculously newb friendly.

EDIT: ahh you have that a bit wrong he started a thread (we are thinking of the same harry right?) on warseer he was quoting someone from BoLS who said:

"blahblahblah 8th ed fantasy out summer 2010 with new starter set in fall, ive heard orcs and goblins and empire will feature, with O&G getting an update q1 2010.blahblahblah"

not a very reliable source as O&G aren't coming in 2010.

Nah, I'm referring to the bits where a couple of folks in the thread are going on the fact BoC would be the last army of 7th edition and he hints at something else, as if he is hinting a third book or something different to Tomb Kings will be in there before 8th.

Note I used 'Seemed' and 'as if' ... there is no definate 'yes and by the way theres a third/diff book coming,' type comment but Harry tends to be pretty cryptic with his responses over there, and often he is correct.

His last two points in post 104 is what I am seeing as a strong hint for example.

Probably nothing, but as its him, I do have to wonder.

Harry seems to hinting towards a third Warhammer army release before 8th hits next year, after BoC and Tomb Kings.

Just to clarify what harry said:

Tomb Kings are defo after beasts .... but I am not sure they are that soon or even next.

He said he believed TK were not before Beasts. We know that much already.

He also said that he is not sure if they would be soon after beasts, or even if they are next.

This does not equate to beasts and TK before 8th.

I believe they could release 2 armies before 8th (including beasts), but I have been told that TK are not until 2011. So this does not disprove harry (as he said he wasn't sure), but it means there could still be another army between beasts and 8th.

Rumours have gone round that some things have been discussed about Ogres, however they could easily fill up the space with wave releases.

You can forget about the Orcs until after the current cycle completes (imo), that is so unlikely to happen.

i think tk's will be before 8th ed with ogre kingdoms be soon after.

also i reckon empire and daemons of chaos for the starter set.

twistinthunder wrote:
also i reckon empire and daemons of chaos for the starter set.

Why?

daemons because they are one of (if not the) most newb friendly armies.

empire, dunno for some reason it just sounds right.

Well Empire and O&G is what's being touted about, I wouldn't know about daemons though, they seem unlikely to me for some reason, that may be because I am old and they still look like an upstart army and experiment.

They tried a daemon army before and ended up amalgamating it back into chaos.

Do daemon armies sell that well for fantasy? If they did use them as one of the two starters, I think it would be a Dark Elder sized mistake.

lol dark elder sized mistake! lol

i dunno they more power in fantasy than they are in 40k (i think) and as both a 40k and whfb i was thinking of making a magnetized bases daemon army.

Grimstonefire wrote:

Harry seems to hinting towards a third Warhammer army release before 8th hits next year, after BoC and Tomb Kings.

Just to clarify what harry said:

Tomb Kings are defo after beasts .... but I am not sure they are that soon or even next.

He said he believed TK were not before Beasts. We know that much already.

He also said that he is not sure if they would be soon after beasts, or even if they are next.

This does not equate to beasts and TK before 8th.

I believe they could release 2 armies before 8th (including beasts), but I have been told that TK are not until 2011. So this does not disprove harry (as he said he wasn't sure), but it means there could still be another army between beasts and 8th.

Rumours have gone round that some things have been discussed about Ogres, however they could easily fill up the space with wave releases.

Actually what he says there doesn't make any sense at all, but like I said he has a tendacy of being cryptic, in another post in that thread he said Orcs and Empire wouldn't be next after 8th launches, and in the same post you took that comment from he said this.

Dosadi wrote:
Yes, as most have figured out I had a brain fart and typed 2010 when I meant 2011.

... after Beastmen who will be the last 7th edition army ...

Harry wrote:
I will EDIT the first post to clear up this mistake.

I am not sure you are right about this either ... I'll say no more.

I have no idea myself, I'm just raising it as it seems odd thing for him to say, but like I've said its obvious he knows someone at/connected to GW, as he's said before he's been asked to back off with the rumours.

He's also right alot, along with Hastings, Brimstone and a few others.

Could be anything though, could be nothing.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I have no idea myself, I'm just raising it as it seems odd thing for him to say, but like I've said its obvious he knows someone at/connected to GW, as he's said before he's been asked to back off with the rumours.

Apparantly he doesn't know anyone currently at GW (for getting rumours, though Wade Pryce and Adam Troke have asked him to tone it down). I actually have a novel idea about who Harry's source is, but it would be very unwise for me to say.

Back on topic if Harry said that beasts would be the last army before 8th then that's pretty clear. I still don't believe that O&G 8th edition armybook will come any sooner than late 2011. A source book maybe, a wave release certainly, but not an armybook.

About Demons being one of the possible armies in the starter, I think that's unlikely for another reason. Moms. Mums. Mothers. And I mean that in the woman who raised and/or bore you sense.

Big old box of Orcs V. Human Empire is already hard enough to sell to parents. Human Empire vs. box full of evil demon-devil looking critters will be a no-sale for many households. They may look cool to kiddies and many adults but even the worst parents pause a little when their kid wants a box full o' obvious evil.

Just saying.

well daemons would never be in a box set because
1) there metal and metal+box=nono
2) if htey did make a plastic version they would lose HUGE amounts of mony because they would lose all the people buying the metal sets

Brigades are a strong reperisentation of what GW thinks is the big thing. From what there showing is that Empire and O&G are strong in sales and will be getting an even larger spotlight through either the starter set or a new revision of their codex

With the infusion of fantasy material in the last few years, I think Orks/Empire makes sense. I didn't really see any new models per se in the new brigade boxes, but if they do an equal type points value in the new Fantasy box as they have done for this one, they can expect another good round of sales.

And would match the current 40k set (SM/Ork).

I'd like to see all of Chaos return in one epic, hard back tome. Beasts, mortal, daemon, dwarf. I'd like to see them just concentrate on army books, models, fluff, campaigns, expanding the Warhammer World with armies from the border princes, Cathay. More stuff like the SoC or Lustria. A 'Good guy' Campaign into the wastes...

I'd like to see all of that, but I doubt I will. They'll change the rules to allow for snaking or lapping around the flank again, maybe change the lores up a bit. Nothing too drastic.

Beasts v. Empire in the box set. OR the kill the collective chubby everyone has Chaos Dwarfs v High Elves.

An aggressive good guy crusade type campaign would be fantastic. I always was tired of the goodies having to sit and defend the whole friggin' time.

Khornholio wrote:I'd like to see all of Chaos return in one epic, hard back tome. Beasts, mortal, daemon, dwarf. I'd like to see them just concentrate on army books, models, fluff, campaigns, expanding the Warhammer World with armies from the border princes, Cathay. More stuff like the SoC or Lustria. A 'Good guy' Campaign into the wastes...

I'd like to see all of that, but I doubt I will. They'll change the rules to allow for snaking or lapping around the flank again, maybe change the lores up a bit. Nothing too drastic.

Beasts v. Empire in the box set. OR the kill the collective chubby everyone has Chaos Dwarfs v High Elves.

Oh God, not overlapping. That made my head hurt. Also can't see it happening as we all use movement trays these days and taking out minis to overlap just slows down the game.

Think we'd all like to see Chaos back in one book rather than being "organised" into separate factions. Chaos is the operative word after all!

Khornholio wrote:More stuff like the SoC or Lustria. [...]

I'd like to see all of that, but I doubt I will.

I'll join you in doubting, seeing as I'm almost positive GW said Supplement books are going the way of the dodo. A shame, because they were pretty good.

I think I played a whole 5 games since the last edition came out :( I just don't get to play enough.

I like the idea of empire vs orks for the box set though, seems like the best choice for fantasy. It should at least be empire though, but what I don't get is why they never do chaos in the starter boxes for 40k too. I mean isn't chaos the biggest baddest enemy there is?

You need one human faction -- the "goodies"-- and one non human --the "baddies"-- as an easy POV to introduce the new players to I think from what I've heard and been told.

Chaos Mortals (Goodies) vs. High Elves (Baddies) FTW!

With a new core ruleset, I am also hoping there is a return to big blocks of infantry vs. Herohammer and 'Deathstars' type of play.

- Blackbone

I hope the new rule set address the flaws in the magic phase, hopefully nerfing Daemons in the process. I got into this game for big monsters and big bloks of infantry, not rolling dice to cast tons of magic. Normally when me and my friends have friendly games its, 2250 points, neither one of us choose a lvl 4 as our general and we might run 2 lvl 2's, depending on the army.

What was the big Magic shake up from 6th->7th, anyways? (Never played 6th).

Basically Wizards can only use the dice they generate plus the ones from the pool (i.e. the two dice you get). A popular tactic in 6th was using lvl 2 wizards as "batteries" for the big bad 4th lvl wizard. In 7th, that tactic went away as you could no longer share the dice.

Not sure I want a new edition, I will have to re-read the rules again, not to mention explaain them all over again to my dad. Also ill have to wait for all the new codexes to come out again.

I have one friend who's only played a single game under the current edition. He won't be happy.

Then again, my gaming group might not upgrade editions for a while anyway. 7th works fine for us as-is (no daemon or dark elf players in the group, no all cavalry armies, basically we don't play in tournaments or tournament style) so it might not be worth the hassle and cost changing to 8th straight away.

Blackbone wrote:With a new core ruleset, I am also hoping there is a return to big blocks of infantry vs. Herohammer and 'Deathstars' type of play.

- Blackbone

Shade deathstars are an official dark elf tactic. Check the armybook, it's in there.

Aren't Deathstars big blocks of infantry generally anyway?

I'd hope there is a diversity of types of play that all work reasonably well. I'm not sure what they can do to make infantry better though, in a world with flying monsters, fireballs and ubercav of doom.

Give em pikes!! ASF vs Cav and +2 to str when being charged by cav, +1 from other infantry when they are being charged. Fight in three ranks and no bonuses on the charge!!

A bit wishlisty but here goes:
GW could certainly change infantry moving mechanics a bit which in turn would make objective grabbing and such more feasible, If 8th ed. is gonna feature new scenario system. For example making difficult terrain effect infantry less (or even not at all) would be a good start. I'm hoping also that the scenarios will require standard troops to actually win now and then, which would hopefully steer the game away from the single models and such (a bit).

Reworking mechanics for templates and especially warmachines would be good way to streamline the game without removing too much flavor. I'm thinking guess weapons here.

I don't want deathstars to go away. I don't want herohammer to go away. I don't want all cav, gunlines, heavy magic, big stompy, or MSU elite armies to go away. I just want them to be on equal footing with horde and block armies. I know it will never happen, but I really want a large variety of viable army types.

I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

I would say the only thing about Fantasy I don't like now is the lack of game play options. We've created our own, which isn't hard. But when the basic game is just annihilation, it gets rather bogged down. Objectives, Capture the Flag, Annihilation, etc would infuse and give different strategies to different scenarios.

I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

bbb wrote:I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

Yes rank bonus needs a run through but not like that, that would make it too powerful. I think generally the main factors should be the models you killed and outnubering. Perhaps you get 2+ for outnumbering by 5.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

I'm with you on that. It makes sense. O&G are normally the first book they re-release.

One thing I'd like to see which won't happen because it will mean selling a few less models, is to change the 5-wide for rank bonus rule. I understand why they want it like that (other than for model sales) but I think it should be dependent upon base size. So, 20mm = 5 wide, 25mm = 4 wide. And maybe the ogre sized stuff (40mm?) could be 3 wide?

Not everyone likes big blocks of troops. I'd rather have a variety of 20 man units over less units in bigger blocks.

Eldar Own wrote:

bbb wrote:I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

Yes rank bonus needs a run through but not like that, that would make it too powerful. I think generally the main factors should be the models you killed and outnubering. Perhaps you get 2+ for outnumbering by 5.

it would be very powerful early in the game, but after 6 wounds the typical 4 ranks x 5 wide unit will have the benefits taken away.

I think one of the main issues with making WHFB an objective type game is the fact it is 25mm on a 6x4 table. This may in part be due to my 15mm wargaming background, but I have found that objective games generally require two main things:

1: A moderately large number of units, such that the concept of flanks and reserves has meaning beyond 2 units on the left, two on the right and one in the back.
2: A playing space large enough that most units need to move to interact with other units, forcing a trade off between action and movement, such that movement becomes a strategy.

Now, I don't know that WHFB can't do this. I certainly haven't played enough of it to know. However I have seen similar issues with other 25mm or greater wargames played on a small space. Without having lots of room to maneuver, big blocks of troops have little to do other than smash into each other, and without having lots of units to maneuver there are very few possible decisions to make on what gets moved where. (The very open terrain of WHFB exacerbates things too perhaps)

Personally, I would think an 8'x5' table would be needed for things to really work, as well as allowing for more units and more turns perhaps. Of course, at that point you are signing up for 4-5 hour games, and most people might not be up for that.

Necros wrote:One thing I'd like to see which won't happen because it will mean selling a few less models, is to change the 5-wide for rank bonus rule. I understand why they want it like that (other than for model sales) but I think it should be dependent upon base size. So, 20mm = 5 wide, 25mm = 4 wide. And maybe the ogre sized stuff (40mm?) could be 3 wide?

Not everyone likes big blocks of troops. I'd rather have a variety of 20 man units over less units in bigger blocks.

My thoughts are the same, I play Chaos Warriors and it is really hard to win with only the normal ttacks and wounds, the need to go back to ranks of 4.

16 Saurus in a box? Too bad, now you just have to get another 4 Saurus to make it usable!
This pisses me off. Change the rank bonus rules and a couple of other rules and I'm happy.
Not that I wouldn't be happy now but still

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

Games Workshop FAQ

Orcs & Goblins wrote:ERRATA Page 25. Fanatics, add to the Special Rules: "Immune to psychology"

Minsc wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

Games Workshop FAQ

Orcs & Goblins wrote:ERRATA Page 25. Fanatics, add to the Special Rules: "Immune to psychology"

Wow! That was fast!

Fanatics are listed as immune to psyche in my O&G book.

My first reaction was "whaa...it's too soon!" but then I looked it up and realized that 7th Ed. came out in September 2006, and that four years was a pretty good stretch. Unlike many people here apparently I was the only way around and only played one game of 4th Ed. 40K but played 7th Ed. WHFB pretty regularly. But I don't see how the game is going to be any more of a rules adjustment than 6-to-7 was.

They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Broken army lists are a problem with that army, not the core rules, and should be fixed in that armies codex. No need to reboot the entire system.

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Untrue.
You are actually hard pressed using the daemon army book to make a 'poor build' and instead are presented with a great many powerful builds and then some super-powered builds. Dwarves on the other hand, Beasts and Ogres are all fairly hard pressed to create a decently competitive build.

There is an unbalance between daemons and the rest of the armies.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

MDG, I appreciate your position as a servant of two masters here, but look at 40k: there are a half dozen nasty builds, with another dozen solid builds. Over half the codices have something that can truly compete. That's simply not true of fantasy.

It's a fine line between a person "being a dick" and taking the self evidently good choices in a book. How hard would it be to have a dozen competitive players spend a long weekend with an army book and find the broken, so they can tone it down.

Quirky things like Nob bikers (which really only got good with an edition shift) are one thing, in that they took a while for the community to discover and break. Fantasy books come with the good stuff readily apparent, and it simply isn't too much to ask for GW to catch some of that stuff.

Modquisition on. Politeness is required here people. Callign people names, even generic players ist verbotten. Lets move off it shall we.

It still comes down to an Army Book thing and not a Core Rules thing. If all armies were on par with each other the system would be great. I'm fortunate that my gaming group has an unwritten rule when it comes to power builds (so I won't bring my Popemobile if you don't bring your Regenerating Grave Guard Deathstar) and even O&G can compete with the other armies.

It is silly that the Daemon book is as broken as it is. It's even sillier that it won't likely be changed for the next several years.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Untrue.
You are actually hard pressed using the daemon army book to make a 'poor build' and instead are presented with a great many powerful builds and then some super-powered builds. Dwarves on the other hand, Beasts and Ogres are all fairly hard pressed to create a decently competitive build.

There is an unbalance between daemons and the rest of the armies.

First up, and this is a general thing rather than to yourself specifically, but I do not post speaking from my position of employment. My opinions are my own, and nobody elses. I don't flaunt it, so please don't reference it yourselves. It's rude, and somewhat condescending to suggest that due to a part-time job, my opinion is somehow less valid.

Now, to business.

I have honestly never had a problem with Daemons of Chaos. I've spanked them, they've spanked me, and everything in between. I thoroughly enjoyed every single game I had. Daemons do have some weak builds, due to the generally high points costs, variances in movement etc. But like every list in my personal experience (barring silly stuff like all Snotlings!) can be just as deadly in the hands of a competent player.

The books and the game are simply not written with competitive play in mind. The game always has been designed around the models, rather than the rules. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to consider competitive play, but the danger there is going too far and restricting background based builds. For example, any kind of unit type ratio (ala previous Skaven 'mainstay') would render for instance, my all Savage Orc List useless, because as it's monicker suggests, it consists of 100% Frenzied troops.

And on the subject of Competitive Play (remember though, I don't partake of this angle of the Hobby) it has always struck me that certain lists are derided for doing well in a Competitive setting. This seems a bit, well, confusing to me. If I took a Daemon list which was naughty in the right places, and placed well in a Tournament, rather than be applauded for my list writing and generalship, I would instead be lambasted for almost borderline cheating. Surely if you are going into a Competitive Environment, you should expect balls out play, and do so yourself. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of gamers can arrange 'friendly' games with their opponents. Now due to Geographical Situations (like being the only gamer for a hundred miles, to give an example) I have no doubt some poor souls have no real venue to play at other than organised events. But again, there is nothing stopping them 'gunning up' for serious competitive play.

And thus I feel the problem lies with the players. My local club is quite Tournament Oriented, but having had a bit of a whinge, I made it clear that when I play a game, let me know in advance what level you hope to play at. Give and Take on both sides, and everyone is happy. After all, if you really feel the need to tackle a naughty level Tournament list, I'll wheel out the Double Hydra List I've had for 6 years, and give you a run for your money. But if I have no game arranged, and I've brought my Savage Orcs, please meet me with a list not designed for the Competitive Arena, or at the very least, a list for Tournaments which is as yet untested.

Variety is the spice of life, and the same is true of gaming.

I think the happy medium here is to run 'dual usage' Tournaments. For those of us who prefer a gentle meander through the blood soaked battlefields, have a non-placed section, where you just pick a fight and see what happens, whilst elsewhere in the venue, is a Traditional Tournament for those who enjoy the edge of competitive play.

Yerk! Sorry, initial part of my post was referring to Polonius. Guess I quoted the wrong bit!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

First up, and this is a general thing rather than to yourself specifically, but I do not post speaking from my position of employment. My opinions are my own, and nobody elses. I don't flaunt it, so please don't reference it yourselves. It's rude, and somewhat condescending to suggest that due to a part-time job, my opinion is somehow less valid.

Easy killer, I was simply pointing out that it's very unlikely that a GW staff member is going to say "yes, Demons of Chaos are utterly broken and clearly were barely playtested." If you generally post like a company man, and you are, in fact, a company man, I don't think it's totally out of line to point that out. I've been a company guy before, when I sold swimming pools, so I understand your position.

The books and the game are simply not written with competitive play in mind. The game always has been designed around the models, rather than the rules. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to consider competitive play, but the danger there is going too far and restricting background based builds. For example, any kind of unit type ratio (ala previous Skaven 'mainstay') would render for instance, my all Savage Orc List useless, because as it's monicker suggests, it consists of 100% Frenzied troops.

For example, the paragraph above could be from a "Standard Bearer" article.

And on the subject of Competitive Play (remember though, I don't partake of this angle of the Hobby) it has always struck me that certain lists are derided for doing well in a Competitive setting. This seems a bit, well, confusing to me. If I took a Daemon list which was naughty in the right places, and placed well in a Tournament, rather than be applauded for my list writing and generalship, I would instead be lambasted for almost borderline cheating. Surely if you are going into a Competitive Environment, you should expect balls out play, and do so yourself. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of gamers can arrange 'friendly' games with their opponents. Now due to Geographical Situations (like being the only gamer for a hundred miles, to give an example) I have no doubt some poor souls have no real venue to play at other than organised events. But again, there is nothing stopping them 'gunning up' for serious competitive play.

You're lack of experience with the competitive scene shows, to be honest. Competitive players don't want one good list in one army book, they want a range of options, and they certainly don't want insanely obvious good choices.

And thus I feel the problem lies with the players.

Isn't the the GW motto?

My local club is quite Tournament Oriented, but having had a bit of a whinge, I made it clear that when I play a game, let me know in advance what level you hope to play at. Give and Take on both sides, and everyone is happy. After all, if you really feel the need to tackle a naughty level Tournament list, I'll wheel out the Double Hydra List I've had for 6 years, and give you a run for your money. But if I have no game arranged, and I've brought my Savage Orcs, please meet me with a list not designed for the Competitive Arena, or at the very least, a list for Tournaments which is as yet untested.

Variety is the spice of life, and the same is true of gaming.

I hear all that, and I'm much the same way, but wouldn't it be nice if you could, instead of bring two totally different armies, be able to bring 3000pts of O&G that can be either a 2k fun list or a 2k hard list? I can do that with most 40k armies....

I think the happy medium here is to run 'dual usage' Tournaments. For those of us who prefer a gentle meander through the blood soaked battlefields, have a non-placed section, where you just pick a fight and see what happens, whilst elsewhere in the venue, is a Traditional Tournament for those who enjoy the edge of competitive play.

Yerk! Sorry, initial part of my post was referring to Polonius. Guess I quoted the wrong bit!

I like that idea. There are a lot of ways to work about GW producing wildly unbalanced army books, and I think people are willing to do that, but I still think it's fair to simply ask GW to not produce wildly unbalanced army books. I mean, I had an old Ford Escort in which the air blower didn't work unless the passenger kicked under the dash. It was an easy thing to work around, but it was still better when the blower simply worked right.

I see where you're coming from, and I do agree to some extent.

You might have affected the context with where you split my post up though (unintentionally I'm sure). Made the point of illustrating my lack of Competitive Experience so people had a framework of where my thinking was coming from, before just jumping on my lack of knowledge in an area I feely admit to not really knowing that much about.

Did come across a little heavy handed in the first bit though. Was meant to be a polite request to not bring up what I consider an irrelevant bit of information. Besides, this has always been my attitude and viewpoint! :thumbs:

It is still a well-known fact that you work for Games Workshop, and if you posted disparaging remarks about the company, you could concievably be fired.

Well MDG has been posting for awhile and his attitude was exactly the same before he worked for GW so while Polonius and Skyth are correct, I don't think it has any bearing on this discussion.

Also Skyth, I don't think MDG has posted his real name or the store he works for anywhere, there is a bit of anonymity so he can post what he thinks without worrying about rebuke irl.

I could concievably be fired for many things I might say on the Interwebs. Being rude to customers etc isn't exactly conducive to business.

So please folks, don't go just bringing it up. If you have a question for me revolving around it, please please please do it over PM.