Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Togusa wrote:First and foremost, I'm going to be asking them to consider opening their own community forums attached to the community site.
They had one a long time ago, but it devolved into a massive dumpster fire. They needed to kill it and were right in doing so. I assume it's part of the reason comments are disabled on their YouTube channels. We will never see another GW forum again thankfully.
MtG finally killed their forum several months ago for the same reason.
Actually forums are on the way out in a lot of places; mostly because a LOT of young and older people now use Facebook groups instead. For GW it makes sense to have facebook as their primary point of community contact and let their mods moderate there rather than spreading things thin over loads of alternate channels and formats. Basically if you want to chat go to facebook.
Now personally I prefer forums, but I can appreciate why GW will likely just stick to Facebook.
The thing is though, forums serve a completely different purpose to Facebook. FB discussions are all about the now and aren't sustainable like forum threads are which can go on for weeks, months or even years at a time. I don't know where they want people to to discuss this hobby in depth in any meaningful way. FB doesn't support that format, neither does Reddit (plus their whole upvote/downvote system stymies proper debate, but that's a whole 'nother topic there... ). Which leaves forums. Privateer Press went through this (fairly) recently with their forum users drawing the same conclusions I did, which is why they went and made their own forum (with Blackjack, and hookers! ).
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Oh I agree forums are superior for actual discussion! They are a great platform they are just not the "cool new hotness" of the moment. Plus Facebook has most people cornered these days with no need to register or anything; its right there and people pay attention to it. I can see why companies focus their resources there rather than on forums.
I fully expect that the market might come back to forums in time once someone makes some nifty website app that makes them sound fancy and new. It will probably come with obnoxious interface designs and big shiny icons that don't mean anything instead of words like "post" and "thread"
Togusa wrote:First and foremost, I'm going to be asking them to consider opening their own community forums attached to the community site.
They had one a long time ago, but it devolved into a massive dumpster fire. They needed to kill it and were right in doing so. I assume it's part of the reason comments are disabled on their YouTube channels. We will never see another GW forum again thankfully.
MtG finally killed their forum several months ago for the same reason.
Actually forums are on the way out in a lot of places; mostly because a LOT of young and older people now use Facebook groups instead. For GW it makes sense to have facebook as their primary point of community contact and let their mods moderate there rather than spreading things thin over loads of alternate channels and formats. Basically if you want to chat go to facebook.
Now personally I prefer forums, but I can appreciate why GW will likely just stick to Facebook.
Yeah, I just found out that the Steamforged Games forums are shutting in a couple of weeks, which is a bit of a shame.
Thing is, that place has been on life support for a while now. It's a shame that people didn't use it more, but the GUBS and Sales/Trade pages on FB are infinitely more active, and given SFG stated aim of narrowing the range of contact options to improve focus, I can see why they chose to close it.
The rules thing was the best bit, and getting official answers to queries from the Lawyers Guild in short time frames is going to be a big miss.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Problem is that free speech and business just doesn't gel..
How long before a PR gakstorm because someone's son/daughter Snowlake felt like they got bullied because someone said a perceived mean thing to them about their army/idea/opinion...
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Dr Coconut wrote: 1. Primaris... No! They are out of scale for 40k, so release more proper marines. Treating them as specialist troops is ok(ish), but not at the expense of real marines.
2. Warhammer TV is a great tool for painting, it helps with seeing what the detail is intended to be (some of us are getting old )
3. Don't forget Inquisition, Rogue Traders and other 'minor' factions of the Imperium need a codex. No problem with them all lumped together in one, or in their own book.
4. There have been 2 Rogue Traders released in games, both have the same stats, same fixed load out and that is all they have in common. The keywords are different, and 5 points difference. Include game figures in the FAQ when rules are supplied for their use in 40k.
5. Kill Team... make enough copies to last until the next starter set. Keep the cards in stock, even if on a kanban/JIT system.
6. Red plastic!! It is a pain to paint.
7. Loving '40,000 Conquest'. Consider a similar subscription system for AoS and/or Kill Team. On the subject of Conquest, bring back Frankie and his tutorials.
8. Give units/individuals the same points/power level across the range for each setting. Opening up game characters for use as not just 'counts as'. Necromuna has some cool characters for this. I want to take Gor Half-horn as himself when used with my inquisition, not as an acolyte.
9. Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Open their own Forums? Hah. Will. Not. Happen. A fresh pool for the saltier folks to piss in, is all that would be. Impossible to police so as to be a nice place, and derided as ‘suppressing opinions’ if they do. Heck, the mods have a rough enough time on here when some of our more difficult community members get bored of their MRA subreddits and come to trash threads. They’ve already had to outright ban politics. A GW forum would just be trolls shrieking about prices and nerfs and Bretonnians. I shudder to think how vile it would get, quickly.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Dr Coconut wrote: Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Apart from CA (which is versioned by year), which rulebooks does GW update?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/24 13:37:16
Dr Coconut wrote: Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Apart from CA (which is versioned by year), which rulebooks does GW update?
Well, the 8th ed versions of codexes have used the same art on the cover as the 7th ed, in a lot of cases. I can see possible confusion there.
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Dr Coconut wrote: Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Apart from CA (which is versioned by year), which rulebooks does GW update?
Well, the 8th ed versions of codexes have used the same art on the cover as the 7th ed, in a lot of cases. I can see possible confusion there.
Okay, I see what he meant now. GW don't really refer to the game by editions though so I doubt they're going to do that. In fact, I suspect it's the reason why there are a lot of threads asking what rulebooks are needed to have the latest rules in 8th edition too (i.e. the BRBand latest CA) - GW don't want to publicise that they're constantly updating the game and that players will have to fork out for new rulebooks on a regular basis...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/24 19:30:52
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
Dr Coconut wrote: Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Apart from CA (which is versioned by year), which rulebooks does GW update?
Well, the 8th ed versions of codexes have used the same art on the cover as the 7th ed, in a lot of cases. I can see possible confusion there.
It is a real pain. I have been organising my collection and gaming room with a view to finally once again playing 40K again. To that end, I have been going through the absolute mountain of rulebooks and codexes I have from each edition and trying to work out what is/isn't current. I have to have the Lexicanum codex page open on my iPad at the same time just to work out which version is which and as you say, in some cases, artwork has been reused. It is an absolute nightmare.
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
1) Those coming after the licence are OldWorld fans so that's the kind of game they've wanted to make for years and still want too
2) Old World has a more developed and easier to access lore and setup; AoS is all big sparkly realms and such which is harder to visualise and some realms are hard to put into a game without more effort (eg you do the land of metal and you've got a lot of work custom building the whole thing; go for a generic old-world medieval setting and a lot of assets might be in-house made or easily bought and put together)
3) Total War Warhammer is still a thing and a big thing so many might be wanting to jump on its back and ride that popularity wave. Meanwhile AoS games have been fewer and often mobile focused (most are not that good there's yet to be a really GREAT and BIG AoS game)
There's also the fact that game development of any quality takes a while and they were most certainly well invested into vermintide and total warhammer before AOS was the big thing.
AOS being denied seems like a bit of fan spank, give it a few more years and if there's more old world properties then maybe, but right now? No, not really. At best we'd be seeing the first real AOS game about now if they'd gotten someone on it immediately.
Personally the way that CA has setup the Total War story I wager that they are at least planning on doing AoS at some point in the future. That the first and second games start to setup the end of the magical vortex and a huge influx of Chaos demons by the 3rd game suggests nicely that they can end the world with Chaos and lead into their own opening of AoS.
Dr Coconut wrote: Identify rulebooks and codex on the cover regarding version. Just on the external cover, a publishing date or note stating it is intended for x th edition and later. I don't believe any rule books actually state which edition they are, and shops (non GW still have old copies on the shelves)
Apart from CA (which is versioned by year), which rulebooks does GW update?
Well, the 8th ed versions of codexes have used the same art on the cover as the 7th ed, in a lot of cases. I can see possible confusion there.
It is a real pain. I have been organising my collection and gaming room with a view to finally once again playing 40K again. To that end, I have been going through the absolute mountain of rulebooks and codexes I have from each edition and trying to work out what is/isn't current. I have to have the Lexicanum codex page open on my iPad at the same time just to work out which version is which and as you say, in some cases, artwork has been reused. It is an absolute nightmare.
With the 7th and 8th books- If they have a border around the art on the front cover it's 8th, if not; 7th.
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
I am going to ask for the specific clip, just in case it's not taken out of context or misquoted.
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
Can you share a link to that interview?
Been looking, but it's a bear to find a specific post on Facebook.
Overread wrote: even there I'd wager GW is now signing AoS titles not Old World ones. I don't think they can go back now; AoS has been out too long and had too much invested into it to turn the tables back.
Except one of the recent interviews for Chaosbane outright stated GW are shopping around the AoS license and companies are refusing it and instead demanding Old World access for their games. Companies don't want AoS and GW would rather have Old World licensed games than no licensed games.
I am going to ask for the specific clip, just in case it's not taken out of context or misquoted.
Not a clip, written article.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/25 13:35:24
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Better Rule Management - Merge FAQ's, Chapter Approved Changes etc into existing books so there's mitigated paper creep.
Forge World Utility - Review forge world model points costs in matched play as they're quite frankly ridiculous in some circumstances.
Model prices - in general they're huge in cost. £25 for Ahriman? Jesus... Even if they don't permanently reduce them, at least have a sale once in a while.
Mono-pose - dumpster it or give us a choice. I like my models customisable so I can put my own filter on them plus some times I genuinely don't like some models (I think the new Calagar model is ghastly).
Rule Broadness - I'm not saying we need the ability to have rules for every combination imaginable but it doesn't need to quite be as strict as 'no model, no rules'. There's clearly a comfortable middle ground.
Rule Broadness 2.0 - Give characters more flexibility again. I remember the days where we had a very nice armoury to choose from. It's ok to have a LITLLE diversity...
Campness - Drop the pantomime. I like my Grim Dark and grit. If I see one new model looking like it belongs in a cartoon or one more daemon that doesn't sincerely look like something's nightmare ima write a letter... This isn't a game for kids (I thought we had AOS for that). We don't need to be child friendly.
Availability - More short-term availability of old models. I want to buy more Juan Diaz Daemonettes without tussling with some neck beard on eBay who wants £50 per model.
Inquisitor - Bring it back with a new rule book that contains all the Inferno rule sets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/25 15:49:13
Forge World Utility - Review forge world model points costs in matched play as, they're quite frankly, ridiculous in some circumstances.
What about a general review of the Corsair, R&H,DKoK and Elysian lists?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Forge World Utility - Review forge world model points costs in matched play as, they're quite frankly, ridiculous in some circumstances.
What about a general review of the Corsair, R&H,DKoK and Elysian lists?
Every single forgeworld point in every single incarnation of forgeworld and point needs a review. If i'm still paying 650pts for a GBS next year well i'll, i'll... just continue to occasionally use it but i'll be more butt hurt (demonstrated by passive-aggressive in-person winging and the occasional disappointed sounding sigh) and I may even post online about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/25 15:49:48
Forge World Utility - Review forge world model points costs in matched play as, they're quite frankly, ridiculous in some circumstances.
What about a general review of the Corsair, R&H,DKoK and Elysian lists?
Every single forgeworld point in every single incarnation of forgeworld and point needs a review. If i'm still paying 650pts for a GBS next year well i'll, i'll... just continue to occasionally use it but i'll be more butt hurt (demonstrated by passive-aggressive in-person winging and the occasional disappointed sounding sigh) and I may even post online about it.
Well, in case of the index lists not only points need a look at.....
(Covenants for R&H come to mind, Random LD, rules interactions still not looked at, missing stratagems, etc.)
Points are just half the issue at this moment i feel.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I think part of the issue for FW is that GW's own internal setup is strict about leaks. So the FW team likely has no idea what the 40K team is doing - apparently even AoS when it launched, was a big surprise to the FW team.
They've also had a lot of restructuring over the last year it seems. From forming and then disbanding a dedicated AoS team to inventory changes - I think FW is possibly in a bit of a mess. Granted the end result is hopefully a lot better, but I think they might still be in the middle of lots of changes. Plus don't forget the insane popularity of a lot of the specialist games.
Rules wise I always got the feeling that FW are still on the "once and done" pattern from the old era of 40K and AoS. Ergo they do it once and then don't have to worry about it till next edition. It might explain why some points are still not adjusted; it could also be that FW's team has been changed around so much they don't have a rules person or don't have time in their new jobs etc...
Really what GW should do is bring FW models under regular rules teams when it comes to balancing and setting up the rules. By all means keep them in their own PDF on the website as an addendum to the core game, rather than putting them in the Battletome/Codex; but at least balance them along with the rest.
Overread wrote: I think part of the issue for FW is that GW's own internal setup is strict about leaks. So the FW team likely has no idea what the 40K team is doing - apparently even AoS when it launched, was a big surprise to the FW team.
They've also had a lot of restructuring over the last year it seems. From forming and then disbanding a dedicated AoS team to inventory changes - I think FW is possibly in a bit of a mess. Granted the end result is hopefully a lot better, but I think they might still be in the middle of lots of changes. Plus don't forget the insane popularity of a lot of the specialist games.
Rules wise I always got the feeling that FW are still on the "once and done" pattern from the old era of 40K and AoS. Ergo they do it once and then don't have to worry about it till next edition. It might explain why some points are still not adjusted; it could also be that FW's team has been changed around so much they don't have a rules person or don't have time in their new jobs etc...
Really what GW should do is bring FW models under regular rules teams when it comes to balancing and setting up the rules. By all means keep them in their own PDF on the website as an addendum to the core game, rather than putting them in the Battletome/Codex; but at least balance them along with the rest.
Didn't they do that in CA atleast point wise and it went horribly wrong?
I could name you a lot of changes that were done in CA that supposedly balancd with the rest but made the sitaution even worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/25 16:28:19
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
). Which leaves forums. Privateer Press went through this (fairly) recently with their forum users drawing the same conclusions I did, which is why they went and made their own forum (with Blackjack, and hookers! 
).
Eldar- 4436 pts
)
It is a pain to paint.
- 10,000 pts CSM 
[1,800] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
