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.
2015/07/06 16:04:40
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:05:13
2015/07/06 16:05:41
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:07:04
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
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
I've now directly asked you to please address my points instead of my perceived insult against you, and yet you continue to ignore the actual meat of the debate. You've spent 3-4 posts bemoaning your insulted honor (repeatedly point out word choice that I never actually employed) without adding a shred of actual substance to the debate. That makes it clear that either you don't have a logical counter argument or simply don't want to engage in an actual debate. I'd gladly be willing to engage in a discussion with you if you can get over the fact that I called you ignorant, which I will say you've done nothing to disprove so far.
2015/07/06 16:13:35
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
Do you think it is the CAD that causes the scale creep? CAD designs can be scaled up and down very easily in the computer, and the amount of detail sculpted is independent of size of the model, so I should think Corvus Belli made a deliberate decision to make the new figures larger. Admittedly I don't know the newer Infinity models. I bought a bunch of stuff a couple of years ago when Beast Of War did their big push, but nothing since.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
I've now directly asked you to please address my points instead of my perceived insult against you, and yet you continue to ignore the actual meat of the debate. You've spent 3-4 posts bemoaning your insulted honor (repeatedly point out word choice that I never actually employed) without adding a shred of actual substance to the debate. That makes it clear that either you don't have a logical counter argument or simply don't want to engage in an actual debate. I'd gladly be willing to engage in a discussion with you if you can get over the fact that I called you ignorant, which I will say you've done nothing to disprove so far.
Have you already forgotten calling people idiots?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:21:25
2015/07/06 16:22:53
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Have you already forgotten calling people idiots? You aren't worth talking to.
You are right. I did use the word idiot once. If you read the sentence I meant it to be from the viewpoint of GW, as in "well let these idiots pay the difference with price hikes" is there viewpoint, but never the less I used the word. I apologize for that word, and that word alone. I still maintain it is ignorant to purchase from GW if you like the hobby. Are you ready to engage in meaningful debate now, or are you going to dodge having to put any thought in the argument because your feelings were hurt?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:24:10
2015/07/06 16:27:25
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
So, notstupid then?
Even if you've decided to take offence as his use of the term idiot, you're really going to have to persuade me that continuing to pay higher and higher prices for essentially the same thing (often recycled) to compensate for fewer and fewer customers being prepared to stay on that treadmill isn't at least a little idiotic?
But then, I guess you're identifying with that description otherwise you wouldn't feel offended, so I don't think there's much discussion to be had on that point.
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
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
Do you think it is the CAD that causes the scale creep? CAD designs can be scaled up and down very easily in the computer, and the amount of detail sculpted is independent of size of the model, so I should think Corvus Belli made a deliberate decision to make the new figures larger. Admittedly I don't know the newer Infinity models. I bought a bunch of stuff a couple of years ago when Beast Of War did their big push, but nothing since.
If I had to guess, it comes from the fact that previously they only used CAD for their TAG(mechs) and hand-sculpted basically everything else and a conscious decision to push CAD designs as heavily as possible while the members of the design staff weren't still 100% familiar with the tech when it came to doing infantry.
The only other alternative is that they advertised the Corregidor starter and blisters that accompanied them as "the start of the new, redesigned range!" and then flat-out chose to ignore that when doing the CAD designs for Icestorm.
2015/07/06 16:29:39
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
2015/07/06 16:30:21
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Can you get over the use of the words idiots and add some substance to your argument?
He can't. It is an argument that can only be rationalised emotionally, under any sort of logical, objective analysis it dissolves very quickly, hence how frequently GW defenders get upset and start attacking people, because while they're perfectly entitled to feel the way they do, they have no substance on which to base those feelings.
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
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
A way to balance the game? Have you been reading the complaints??
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:31:28
2015/07/06 16:33:56
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
Including many people who are critical of (not hate, that's a stupid term) GW. Which is why it is so frustrating to see it so badly mismanaged.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
Good for you! You like things! I like things too! I liked having a mechanism for judging roughly equal forces in a game!
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
Not to have to grow a moustache or shout.
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
To be honest, if people genuinely like AOS and the new models, why shouldn't they buy them? It seems to me the obvious inverse behaviour to not buying them if you don't like them. I do not understand why it is such a crime either way.
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
A way to balance the game? Have you been reading the complaints??
This is my big single complaint.
I'll say that some of the mechanics of the game seem pretty positive. There are lots of interesting things going on with AoS, and it seems simple to pick up the basic rules.
However, I absolutely despair at ever finding a game where the sides are even remotely balanced.
Edit: Let me clarify. Any game which resulted in relatively balanced sides would be a matter of luck more than anything else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:39:24
2015/07/06 16:39:53
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
2015/07/06 16:41:46
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
The only positive thing that can possibly be said about AoS is that it seems pretty simple to pick up.
What good things does it have apart from that?
Games finish very quickly. Both sides suffer attrition after combat, not just the losing side (though the losing side should suffer more). Very simplified combat and shooting (though, I can understand that some people like complexity). Some interesting interactions when unit sizes reach a certain point or if heroes are nearby.
2015/07/06 16:47:19
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Rayvon wrote: It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
While I agree that sometimes the best answer to something is to entirely ignore it... isn't an internet forum a place to discuss things with people who may hold different opinions to yours?
When you say the atmosphere of the place "changes dramatically", what do you mean? You're no longer forced to read opinions you disagree with?
If you're not ready to face criticism for what you do and/or challenge other people's arguments with arguments of your own (instead of ignoring them) then perhaps an internet forum is simply not suited for you?
Just to clarify, I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just a general question aimed to people who seem to have issues with lines of thought that do not match theirs.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
2015/07/06 16:52:05
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Rayvon wrote: It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
While I agree that sometimes the best answer to something is to entirely ignore it... isn't an internet forum a place to discuss things with people who may hold different opinions to yours?
When you say the atmosphere of the place "changes dramatically", what do you mean? You're no longer forced to read opinions you disagree with?
If you're not ready to face criticism for what you do and/or challenge other people's arguments with arguments of your own (instead of ignoring them) then perhaps an internet forum is simply not suited for you?
Just to clarify, I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just a general question aimed to people who seem to have issues with lines of thought that do not match theirs.
I can see what you are getting at, I don't ignore things I disagree with, just people with a constantly negative attitude that repeatedly post the same stuff, there's only a handful on there.
I come here occasionally for a bit of a discussion, but normally for a light hearted read to cheer myself up from the boredom and drudgery of day to day life, the last thing I want to read is a load of whine, over and over.
I understand that people get upset over all sorts of things and I sympathise with a lot, but just like in real life, there are people here that I would rather avoid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 16:56:00
2015/07/06 16:55:01
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
The only positive thing that can possibly be said about AoS is that it seems pretty simple to pick up.
What good things does it have apart from that?
Games finish very quickly. Both sides suffer attrition after combat, not just the losing side (though the losing side should suffer more). Very simplified combat and shooting (though, I can understand that some people like complexity). Some interesting interactions when unit sizes reach a certain point or if heroes are nearby.
Like I said, simplicity is the only good thing that can be said about it.
There is no tactical depth, or there is very little of it since like you said its limited to battle shock and its interactions with heroes. There is no strategical depth because its pure pay-to-win. And to make the pure trifecta of bad rules design, it complicates PUGs even more than Fantasy or 40K ever did...
2015/07/06 16:58:26
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
chaosmarauder wrote: I like the hero phase, it really makes a difference now who you pick as your general.
Love that they adopted skirmish/pile in combat style, is a lot more fluid than rank up method on move trays.
Battleshock is great, both sides can have guys flee if they fail bravery check - thats awesome.
You know, the "Battleshock" thing is both interesting as well as something that makes lack of points values a significant balance issue.
Obviously, things with higher levels of bravery will be better than those with lower levels since you risk losing models even after a victorious round of combat. This would mean, all other things being equal, a lower bravery unit would need more models than a higher bravery unit to keep balance. But, how many more? It gets even more wonky when you look at some of the weird things that can happen on a Battleshock roll, such as with Bloodletters. If they roll a "1" for the BS roll (haha, pun intended), instead of losing any models, the unit regains 1d6 models. Obviously, a unit that regains models on 17% of BS rolls is more valuable than a unit that doesn't have this benefit.
2015/07/06 17:00:28
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Kanluwen wrote: You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
You've just done what I specified was insufficient to prove scale creep. One small figure and one large figure does not make scale creep.
Maybe if you hadn't picked one of smallest figures from the box as your first exhibit.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
So, notstupid then?
Even if you've decided to take offence as his use of the term idiot, you're really going to have to persuade me that continuing to pay higher and higher prices for essentially the same thing (often recycled) to compensate for fewer and fewer customers being prepared to stay on that treadmill isn't at least a little idiotic?
But then, I guess you're identifying with that description otherwise you wouldn't feel offended, so I don't think there's much discussion to be had on that point.
And yet, here you are, putting money into or at least time to write extensive posts about a game company you seem to hate, but can't leave.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 17:06:01
2015/07/06 17:07:21
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
I happen to have plenty of time on my hands right now, and my objectives in posting aren't something you're in a position to really judge.
But this isn't about me, is it?
EDIT
But well done in further attacking people and not arguments, you're doing swell on that front!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 17:09:35
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
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
How does it looks awesome? Visually? Mechanically?
I am honestly curious, because I just don't see it. I've been playing since 4th...bought sold and traded probably every army in play at one time or another and still have more lizards and DE than a reasonable man could ever use at once.
AoS isn't what I have been buying and collecting for. GW has effectively "squatted" my entire collection if I want to use them for the sole purpose of playing GW games. Yep, the new "rules" are free. They better be given that four pages hardly qualifies as something to charge people money for.
I am not doing myself a disservice. I am saving my time to play something that actually interests me. AoS does not interest me in the least.
2015/07/06 17:12:39
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
I happen to have plenty of time on my hands right now, and my objectives in posting aren't something you're in a position to really judge.
But this isn't about me, is it?
Since you seem to be in attack mode on me, I would say I am in good position to judge you. But this line of discussion is pointless, and I have other things to do now then waste time with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 17:14:09
2015/07/06 17:16:32
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
To the original thread: Something tells me AoS is going the Hobbit/LoTR path.... along with rest of the Fantasy. Meaning 40k will be the sole source of major income for GW.... and judging by how they've been running it since 5th Ed, it's gonna tank at one point.... I think...?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/06 17:18:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PXaEUwAZSc "There is just something to be said about a 100, Green-tide Orks charging at you... it is unnerving... even to the most experienced player..."
5200 pnts
Flames of War Panzerkompanie
"RELEASE THE KRA- I MEAN, C'TAN!"
- Anonymous Necron Overlord who totally didn't impersonate Liam Neeson.
2015/07/06 17:26:31
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
I happen to have plenty of time on my hands right now, and my objectives in posting aren't something you're in a position to really judge.
But this isn't about me, is it?
Since you seem to be in attack mode on me, I would say I am in good position to judge you. But this line of discussion is pointless, and I have other things to do now then waste time with you.
Now, let's be clear, I'm not attacking you, I was attacking your argument that you'd been called stupid, when, in reality, you never were.
You were already being told to refute the arguments rather than attack posters, you've simply carried on doing that, but seem to have transferred to me.
But bravo, you've managed to fulfil practically every criteria of a GW defender, right up to the dramatic storming off.
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
5200 pnts
Flames of War Panzerkompanie