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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?

As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.

That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.

Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.

keep in mind "politically charged" is a moving target, something fine when all this was signed off, maybe a year ago, could easily have "unfortunate" meanings assigned by now

And putting any faith in GWs internal proof reading and editorial processes seems misguided at best.

It's Heresy era stuff. What objectionable textual material could they have put in there that didn't show up in a Black Book before?

Feels like one of those so-big-we-can't-tell-you-how-big stories, that almost always end up bogus.

The HH 2 rulebook used language that has been used by anti-trans people in the UK recently. An individual then wrote an open letter asking GW to make sure proofreaders had sensitivity training so that things like that wouldn't get printed.
People in turn did not read the letter, media outlets misrepresented or omitted important parts of the letter, and then the author got enough death threats and other unsavory things hurled at them that they had to contact the police.
The whole thing wouldn't have been an issue if one line hadn't been written, and in fact, had not been written in other GW publications for some time. There was no malice at all but it caused real hurt to real people.

I don't believe that is what is happening here but just some context as to why some might believe it.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
What objectionable textual material could they have put in there that didn't show up in a Black Book before?

There's some brand new fluff and artwork for the Solar Auxilia 1488th Cohort!

Allowing for variance of telling?

I suppose this could be true, but not “and so we pulped all the copies” true.

As in prior to going to print, a late change was made, delaying overall delivery of the prints, with an expected shipping date being missed?

 xttz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?

As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.

That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.

Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.

There's a literal popout on the Warhammer Community site that was up talking about the delay hours before the article as well.

I'm *highly* skeptical. Changing something in the rulebook is not a quick task. This close to release, everything should be set in stone, unless something on the level of Mein Kampf quotes is discovered in the rules. Further, I wouldn't expect to see the game out until next year at the earliest, while the issue was resolved and the new rulebooks were printed. But the delay announcement explicitly states that the game is still on track for this year.

Barring actual evidence to the contrary, I'm currently inclined to stick with the theory that the delay is connected to the warehouse move.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?

As someone who's worked in publishing and advertising, let me assure you that mistakes can get through no matter how many people review it and no matter how many times it's checked. But it sounds like this isn't actually about something a proofer would find anyway. Sounds like something the writer and editor just didn't realize could be interpreted in an offensive way relating to something real-world. Given the nature of the 30k/40K universe, it's surprising it doesn't happen more often.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?

As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.

That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.

Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.

There's a literal popout on the Warhammer Community site that was up talking about the delay hours before the article as well.

tbf, I originally heard this rumor two days ago, so it's definitely something that got floated before the official announcement.

But yeah, I don't mind if it's real or not either way. We sadly just won't know if 'later this year' means September or December or next year...

No matter what happened, it's likely that it wasn't an easy decision to come to, and I'm sure they'll continue to drip-feed us with LI stuff over the next few months leading up to it.

Would love to see them reveal some more esoteric stuff in the meantime. Dracosan tanks for solar auxilia, Falchions for astartes, maybe we finally see a Nightgaunt for titans.

You can datamine the GW site to find this stuff.

leopard wrote:
keep in mind "politically charged" is a moving target, something fine when all this was signed off, maybe a year ago, could easily have "unfortunate" meanings assigned by now

Sounds about right, if it is what I suspect it to be, I'd wager in less than 2 years time that 'politically charged' passage will be a total nothing-burger.

Guess we'll know depending on how long the delay is.

If it's just a few weeks it won't have been enough time for them to reprint and cram them into the boxes. The article did still say it was 'very soon'.

Plus it feels like it would be very expensive in print costs and manhours for a potential controversy that would blow over in a few weeks anyway.

drbored wrote:
Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.

I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.

As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.

Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.

leopard wrote:
sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)

like say "AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.

light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through

Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.

Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.

Yeah, that's all fair.

My hope is that we do see some releases coming up, because outside of Leviathan it's been pretty slow.

 Breotan wrote:

drbored wrote:
Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.

I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.

I immediately was thinking box modifications, but not for a wrong barcode, but because the boxes list “40 models” when they only contain 28 models.

We now know that “model” is an actual defined term in the context of this game, meaning one stand of figures. So advertising 40 models when a box contains just 28 stands, is a little disingenuous. The discrepancies will be much worse on the infantry boxes. Imagine a mother buying her son a box that says 100 models, and upon opening it only contains 20 models. I see false advertising claims in GWs future.

To avoid issues, I think these boxes need to be stickered or re-printed.

RobertDD wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

drbored wrote:
Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.

I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.

I immediately was thinking box modifications, but not for a wrong barcode, but because the boxes list “40 models” when they only contain 28 models.

We now know that “model” is an actual defined term in the context of this game, meaning one stand of figures. So advertising 40 models when a box contains just 28 stands, is a little disingenuous. The discrepancies will be much worse on the infantry boxes. Imagine a mother buying her son a box that says 100 models, and upon opening it only contains 20 models. I see false advertising claims in GWs future.

To avoid issues, I think these boxes need to be stickered or re-printed.

To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:
A few things through the grapevine.

Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes. I'm not here to start a political discussion, just sharing what's been shared in other places.

If that's the reason, I wouldn't mind if they release the other boxes that were planned like the Support boxes, the Thunderhawk, or the Knights, or Titans... I could get started building and painting early....

Yeah, would be nice if they could at least bring back the reboxed Titanicus and Aeronautica stuff since those are games that exist still despite everything.

hams wrote:
To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess.

There’s 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas, and 4 Cyclopes, making 28 game pieces.
And the Rapier has two crew, with 12 crew in the box making 40 figures… so only half of the Rapiers can be crewed?

twentypence wrote:

hams wrote:
To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess.

There’s 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas, and 4 Cyclopes, making 28 game pieces.
And the Rapier has two crew, with 12 crew in the box making 40 figures… so only half of the Rapiers can be crewed?

The Rapier stand has two miniatures on each base, one is the gun itself together with the operator, the other is the second guy thats standing next to it.
So 24 miniatures on 12 rapier bases.

They should have really kept the name stand for the bases so they could use miniatures for the models in them. No idea why they changed that

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.

Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.

They would have known about anything like that long before now, since books and boxes would have needed to arrive months ago for assembly into completed boxes, ready for onward shipping to the US, Australia, etc.

 Matrindur wrote:

The Rapier stand has two miniatures on each base, one is the gun itself together with the operator, the other is the second guy thats standing next to it.
So 24 miniatures on 12 rapier bases.

They should have really kept the name stand for the bases so they could use miniatures for the models in them. No idea why they changed that

Ah, I’d completely missed that the gunner and rapier were part of the same miniature, that makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

leopard wrote:
sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)

like say "AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.

light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through

Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.

that is essentially how first edition worked, there was a table of weapon stats to use when firing at squishies and another for firing at solid stuff, the latter having far fewer weapon entries as all the stuff like bolters etc flat out could not hurt heavier stuff, and it worked quite nicely.

However GW doesn't seem to like the idea of a generic weapon carried by multiple things, hence things getting individual profiles which can be varied unit by unit

it was however a very effective way to do this, you could even expand it slightly to have a third "titanic" target type where some lighter AT weapons either cannot hurt or have yet another profile

 xttz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/

New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed

"Ah Logistics, my ancient enemy, we meet again."

~Games Workshop

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.

Yep, and I have no idea why they didn't do it that way. They already had examples from both earlier editions of Epic and the 8th edition Apocalypse expansion so it's not like it's an idea GW is unaware of. The only thing I can think of is that the Light trait has some rules significance beyond having an AT value of N/A, such as a rule that only Light weapons can fire within melee range.

Can we please not derail this thread into yet another online debate about free speech and what people should or should not find offensive.

I'm here for the tiny models, not political hot takes from Facebook.

In response to Xttz, here here..

Anyway - The FB groups have had massive uptakes of volumes of new members over recent weeks.
As there is a delay I've tried to help push people towards Vanguard miniatures and some of the Community rules efforts - let them know there is an Epic ecosphere other than the one which is about to come from GW.

For Vanguard at least, I'm guessing their sales might have taken a big hit as I am sure almost everyone uses their stuff for proxies (even though they do have their own game and setting now) and most will be waiting for the new LI release - so hopefully might push a couple of restless potential new Epic players their way.