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.

You know what stops people buying third party models for their BB teams?

Making better models at a competitive price with a wide range.

Something GW has well within its abilities to do, but, for whatever reason, doesn't.

Sorry but this is stupid by GW.

They need to fix their entire 40k current range first.

Being an Eldar player I know of the Eldar range the most.

To name a few:

All of the Aspects...

Several Phoenix Lords are, while pretty good, some are awful and could be way more awesome.

JETBIKES JESUS!!!!!

What you've got to realise is GW is risk averse.

Therefore, they much prefer issuing new stuff, which they know every customer might potentially buy, rather than redesign something that those who already own the original may decide to skip because they either prefer the old version, or find it much harder to commit to spending. Hence we get Centurions when the core Assault Squad set is in need of an update etc etc.

This isn't an absolute of course, the new Tac Squad being a recent example, but I suspect that if we were privy to more behind the scenes info, there was a good reason for GW to do it that served GW's purposes, beyond making an improved product for its customers.

Yeah I am sure it makes sense for them to do this.

But as a player of their game I am focused on what is good for the consumer.

There are too many terrible models in their stores..

I mean seriously look at the new Harlequin jetbikes and then look at the Windriders.

It's so god damn old it's a joke to even still be sold.

I agree, I have always felt that putting your customers first is the only way to run a business, and that if you have happy customers everything else falls into place.

GW don't work that way apparently, so I'm afraid the choice is to make your peace with it, or give your toy soldier money to someone who acts like they care.

There is a third, darker, path, but we don't talk about that here.

 pretre wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
the idea of a "false" rumour ceases to exist unless there is a public release by GW of all things they didn't release that we could cross reference with genuine rumours.

This would be hilarious. GW doesn't tell us what they are releasing, but does tell us what they are not releasing.

I would buy a book of rejected concept art from GW.

Hell I'd pay a $100 for one.

Jacob29 wrote:
It's so god damn old it's a joke to even still be sold.

Being old is okay sometimes. But the Jetbikes were ugly when they were released. Why did they choose this helmet design for the Eldar plastics? Some of the metal guardians had much better variants.

Jacob29 wrote:
Sorry but this is stupid by GW.

They need to fix their entire 40k current range first.

Being an Eldar player I know of the Eldar range the most.

To name a few:

All of the Aspects...

Several Phoenix Lords are, while pretty good, some are awful and could be way more awesome.

JETBIKES JESUS!!!!!

Of all the most popular factions, Eldar have the oldest, crappiest models. Many are just horrible. They may be an ancient race, but they don't need ancient metal/finecast

Hopefully, there will be a major Eldar release this year, including new codex and models. Would make for good sales for GW, too.

I bet we see new Tau before we see new Eldar aspects.

 cincydooley wrote:
I bet we see new Tau before we see new Eldar aspects.

Not quite. We'll see new Eldar Aspects before we see new Eldar Aspects.

Geddit?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I bet we see new Tau before we see new Eldar aspects.

Not quite. We'll see new Eldar Aspects before we see new Eldar Aspects.

Geddit?

We already have:

To touch on the topic of bb getting shelved because dreadfleet did bad makes sense in away. Since gw dose not do market research all they had to go off of was the sales numbers for space hulk compared to dread fleet and try and figure out why one did so good and the other did so bad.

It seems like gw assumed dread fleet did bad because the ship models were only for the board game well the space hulk minis could be used in 40k. Thus blood bowl would also do bad since blood bowl mins would only be useful for blood bowl since they wouldn't have as munch use in whfb.

I think most would feel a bad choice on gw's part, but one I could see how they came to.

 Lockark wrote:
To touch on the topic of bb getting shelved because dreadfleet did bad makes sense in away. Since gw dose not do market research all they had to go off of was the sales numbers for space hulk compared to dread fleet and try and figure out why one did so good and the other did so bad.

It seems like gw assumed dread fleet did bad because the ship models were only for the board game well the space hulk minis could be used in 40k. Thus blood bowl would also do bad since blood bowl mins would only be useful for blood bowl since they wouldn't have as munch use in whfb.

Maybe. But what GW does is look at their sales numbers.

Dreadfleet was released and tanked in late 2011.

Summer 2013, Hastings and Harry (and Tasty?) post rumours about BB later in 2013.

Late in 2013, GW kills BB because of Dreadfleet?

Sorry. Doesn't add up. If they did kill a BB due to Dreadfleet-sales, they'd have done it 12+ months before the initial BB-rumours were even posted.

AdMech (GW) in May it seems

Darnok

Originally Posted by Emperor Karl Franz
Lords of War have already confirmed May as the release date for Adeptus Mechanicus.

And as usual, they can be trusted.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?405659-Plastic-(GW-produced)-Warhammer-30K&p=7386779&viewfull=1#post7386779

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
To touch on the topic of bb getting shelved because dreadfleet did bad makes sense in away. Since gw dose not do market research all they had to go off of was the sales numbers for space hulk compared to dread fleet and try and figure out why one did so good and the other did so bad.

It seems like gw assumed dread fleet did bad because the ship models were only for the board game well the space hulk minis could be used in 40k. Thus blood bowl would also do bad since blood bowl mins would only be useful for blood bowl since they wouldn't have as munch use in whfb.

Maybe. But what GW does is look at their sales numbers.

Dreadfleet was released and tanked in late 2011.

Summer 2013, Hastings and Harry (and Tasty?) post rumours about BB later in 2013.

Late in 2013, GW kills BB because of Dreadfleet?

Sorry. Doesn't add up. If they did kill a BB due to Dreadfleet-sales, they'd have done it 12+ months before the initial BB-rumours were even posted.

It does not 'add up' because you assume we heard the bloodbowl rumours in summer 2013 and rushed to our computers to post them. We heard about bloodbowl years before but didn't say much until we thought it was just around the corner. Same with Space Hulk. I used to write a rumours page in a webzine called 'The Watchman' and talked about the early development of these projects years before they happened.

Same thing now with the 9th edition rumours. I have not heard a thing about it for 18 months or more. Everything I heard about this I heard along time ago when it must have just been ideas or at best been starting to take shape. Now folks are talking about it I have to scratch around my head trying to remember everything I heard.

I personally think its bonkers. How a game that no one knew anything about that has no player base has anything to do with a much loved classic that is still played by a lot of folks .... I don't know. I would have thought Space Hulk was a better predictor of how BloodBowl would go too ... but what do I know. I think the point about the alternative models out there is a good one BUT if they did not plan to make a bunch more teams then I am not sure how this would have made a difference.(Although I heard about work done on teams that were in addition to the four teams in the box)

These things happen ... I remember Colin Grayson had done six months work developing a building system for generic fantasy houses ... two sided tiles that could be put together to construct cottages and town houses ..(Bit like cities of death stuff). it had gone all the way from concept, sculpts, moulds proofs ... it was already to go ...they were tens of thousands of pounds into it in terms of development costs and the whole thing got binned by 'higher ups' in favour of more individual buildings ... and we got Skullvane Manse and friends instead. It happens.

 Harry wrote:

These things happen ... I remember Colin Grayson had done six months work developing a building system for generic fantasy houses ... two sided tiles that could be put together to construct cottages and town houses ..(Bit like cities of death stuff). it had gone all the way from concept, sculpts, moulds proofs ... it was already to go ...they were tens of thousands of pounds into it in terms of development costs and the whole thing got binned by 'higher ups' in favour of more individual buildings ... and we got Skullvane Manse and friends instead. It happens.

This makes me sad

 Harry wrote:
It does not 'add up' because you assume we heard the bloodbowl rumours in summer 2013 and rushed to our computers to post them. We heard about bloodbowl years before but didn't say much until we thought it was just around the corner. Same with Space Hulk. I used to write a rumours page in a webzine called 'The Watchman' and talked about the early development of these projects years before they happened.

I assume nothing about when you first heard about them.

But as it stands - if there ever was a BB in development - the rumours would've been wrong at the time you posted them.

Again, no beef with you. But I'd assume 50+% of what is in (various stages of) development at GW never sees the light of day. Long-term rumours fine and dandy, but if you're doing long-term rumours, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that many will not come true (and that these will be indistinguishable from any other false, randomly made-up rumours to your audience).

More importantly, how would you know (rather than assume/conclude/etc..) that the alleged BB was dropped specifically because of Dreadfleet, and not a million other possible reasons (Dreadball coming out, sprues not proving feasible, etc.., etc..)?

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Harry wrote:
It does not 'add up' because you assume we heard the bloodbowl rumours in summer 2013 and rushed to our computers to post them. We heard about bloodbowl years before but didn't say much until we thought it was just around the corner. Same with Space Hulk. I used to write a rumours page in a webzine called 'The Watchman' and talked about the early development of these projects years before they happened.

I assume nothing about when you first heard about them.

But as it stands - if there ever was a BB in development - the rumours would've been wrong at the time you posted them.

Again, no beef with you. But I'd assume 50+% of what is in (various stages of) development at GW never sees the light of day. Long-term rumours fine and dandy, but if you're doing long-term rumours, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that many will not come true (and that these will be indistinguishable from any other false, randomly made-up rumours to your audience).

More importantly, how would you know (rather than assume/conclude/etc..) that the alleged BB was dropped specifically because of Dreadfleet, and not a million other possible reasons (Dreadball coming out, sprues not proving feasible, etc.., etc..)?

So ... I can't win.
The insinuation I have made the whole thing up or am just lying ... "IF there ever was BB in development"
The assumtion that I am wrong and you are right based on your limited understanding "The rumours would have been wrong at the time they were posted."
I once had the final draft of the book in my hand. I posted a rumour about a rule. It was changed the day it went to print two days after I had posted it. just 5 months before the book landed ... MUST have been wrong at the time of posting.
Nothing like 50% in fact ... most stuff goes to plan and arrives exactly when it was supposed to ... contrary to the collective wisdom of the interwebz who scream 'pushed back' everytime something does not turn up exactly when it was 'expected'.
If it was 50% my remarkable track record would be flippin' miraculous.
The demands for 'proof' 'evidnece' of how i know something ..."How do you know that the ALLEGED (There you go again!) BB was dropped because of Dreadfleet..." Because I am a man that knows things ...or I am am that knows people that knows things ... or I am a man that knows people that know people that know people that know things ..... what do you want from me????? I am a man that from time to time hears the odd bit of information that comes in the general direction of GW.

This is why I don't post rumours anymore and just chip in a bit to stuff when other folks post.rumours.
I have not started a rumour thread, posted a single release date or stated anything as a solid fact for quite some time because of having to answer to posts like this.
...and they always start with a phrase like "I have no beef with you ....and then go on to try expalin their beef ... in the same way folks start a sentance with "No offence but... " ... then go on to say something deliberately offensive.

Who the feth! Harry is a fine upstanding gentleman, it's outrageous you'd try to besmirch his character! Pull your head in wonderwolf, it's working it's way up your arse.

 Harry wrote:


This is why I don't post rumours anymore and just chip in a bit to stuff when other folks post.rumours.
I have not started a rumour thread, posted a single release date or stated anything as a solid fact for quite some time because of having to answer to posts like this.
...and they always start with a phrase like "I have no beef with you ....and then go on to try expalin their beef ... in the same way folks start a sentance with "No offence but... " ... then go on to say something deliberately offensive.

And now we know why we no longer have one of the best rumour guys out there

I'm so sorry.

Joyboozer wrote:
Who the feth! Harry is a fine upstanding gentleman, it's outrageous you'd try to besmirch his character! Pull your head in wonderwolf, it's working it's way up your arse.

Quoted for truth.

All I'm wondering is what kind of pie that is. It looks bloody tasty.

Admittedly, I am not up to date on all of the "factions" for 40K.

But when I saw the word "Skitari" and "spider-like" used together.....

It made me think:

"Somebody has been watching Falling Skies (Skitters) and thought that adding them to 40K would be fun."

MB

Skitari predates Falling Sky though.

 Harry wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Harry wrote:
It does not 'add up' because you assume we heard the bloodbowl rumours in summer 2013 and rushed to our computers to post them. We heard about bloodbowl years before but didn't say much until we thought it was just around the corner. Same with Space Hulk. I used to write a rumours page in a webzine called 'The Watchman' and talked about the early development of these projects years before they happened.

I assume nothing about when you first heard about them.

But as it stands - if there ever was a BB in development - the rumours would've been wrong at the time you posted them.

Again, no beef with you. But I'd assume 50+% of what is in (various stages of) development at GW never sees the light of day. Long-term rumours fine and dandy, but if you're doing long-term rumours, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that many will not come true (and that these will be indistinguishable from any other false, randomly made-up rumours to your audience).

More importantly, how would you know (rather than assume/conclude/etc..) that the alleged BB was dropped specifically because of Dreadfleet, and not a million other possible reasons (Dreadball coming out, sprues not proving feasible, etc.., etc..)?

So ... I can't win.
The insinuation I have made the whole thing up or am just lying ... "IF there ever was BB in development"
The assumtion that I am wrong and you are right based on your limited understanding "The rumours would have been wrong at the time they were posted."
I once had the final draft of the book in my hand. I posted a rumour about a rule. It was changed the day it went to print two days after I had posted it. just 5 months before the book landed ... MUST have been wrong at the time of posting.
Nothing like 50% in fact ... most stuff goes to plan and arrives exactly when it was supposed to ... contrary to the collective wisdom of the interwebz who scream 'pushed back' everytime something does not turn up exactly when it was 'expected'.
If it was 50% my remarkable track record would be flippin' miraculous.
The demands for 'proof' 'evidnece' of how i know something ..."How do you know that the ALLEGED (There you go again!) BB was dropped because of Dreadfleet..." Because I am a man that knows things ...or I am am that knows people that knows things ... or I am a man that knows people that know people that know people that know things ..... what do you want from me????? I am a man that from time to time hears the odd bit of information that comes in the general direction of GW.

This is why I don't post rumours anymore and just chip in a bit to stuff when other folks post.rumours.
I have not started a rumour thread, posted a single release date or stated anything as a solid fact for quite some time because of having to answer to posts like this.
...and they always start with a phrase like "I have no beef with you ....and then go on to try expalin their beef ... in the same way folks start a sentance with "No offence but... " ... then go on to say something deliberately offensive.

I don't demand any proof or evidence.

I am simply trying to explain, why it would be irrational to treat rumours that turned out to wrong differently, just because rumour-mongers claim (unprovably) that they were right at the time they were posted.

Natfka could go back on every single rumour he ever posted that didn't become true and claim "they were true at the time".

If the precedent is set for accepting people's word on it for you, it would be unjust and inequable to not extend the same courtesy to every rumour-monger - hastings, natfka, larry vela - in turn making the whole idea of a "false rumour" moot. "False rumours" would cease to exist. There'd only be rumours that "were right at the time" and rumours that "were right at the time and actually were released",

If, on the other hand, different rumour mongers were treated differently, with some judged "less harshly" for the things that didn't pan out than others, the whole rating ceases to be comparable. Rumour-mongers who get false rumours credited as "correct, despite no release, based on courtesy and their word" would inherently get better rating than rumour mongers whose false rumours just get credited as "false", full stop.

For all intends and purposes, there never was a BB (in the past 5 years) just as there never was a plastic thunderhawk. There is no unbiased way to distinguish qualitatively between two false rumours.

Well, here's an idea, rather than holding Harry hostage over things he's very eloquently explained he has no control over, and getting bogged down in some semantic argument between what was wrong and what became wrong over time, we show some god damn appreciation for the many, many occasions he has been spot on and act like humans who can take someone on trust when they've shown on multiple occasions they are worthy of it and not some robotic, Internet kangaroo court that demands irrefutable proof of everything all the time?

Dude.

Let. It. Go.

You seem to be relatively new to 40k since you must not realize that Harry has been posting these rumors for over EIGHT YEARS rather continuously. And he has been right about almost everything, and the biggest hiccup in this Blood Bowl thing is what he's going out of his way to explain.

Given his long, long history of very accurate rumors (going back to before a lot of current posters probably even started 40k), I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's right about this, since he's damn well earned it. Of course I don't expect in any way that the rumor tracker would need to be changed since Blood Bowl hasn't come to past (hopefully one day), but sitting here nitpicking his explanations is absolutely pointless and beyond rude, especially when he was nice enough to wander over here from Warseer to clarify things in the first place!

 Accolade wrote:
Dude.

Let. It. Go.

You seem to be relatively new to 40k since you must not realize that Harry has been posting these rumors for over EIGHT YEARS rather continuously. And he has been right about almost everything, and the biggest hiccup in this Blood Bowl thing is what he's going out of his way to explain.

I am not that new.

Either way, even if I were new and knew nothing about Harry, he could point me towards the rumour tracker and I would see that his track-record, even with the odd false Blood Bowl rumour, is vastly superior to any other rumour-monger out there.

His credentials to the small group of veterans "in-the-know" is undisputed, rumour-tracker or not, so I don't see the issue.. His credentials to newbies are easily demonstrated through is superior track-record in an unbiased system.

Ironically, the latter would cease to be meaningful, if the rumour-tracker were to start measuring different rumour-mongers by different benchmarks, no? One or two false rumours don't tarnish Harrys vastly superior accuracy as a rumour-monger all things considered. A biased and "two-tier" rumour-tracker would do more to obfuscate his excellent track-record than it would do to highlight it.

Great, now you've scared him off and I'm not going to get an answer about Ogres. *sad panda*

This particular tangent is not related to the topic at hand so is best either left or carried on elsewhere.


For the record I believe Mr. Harry's comments above completely.