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.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

It was a shame that I didn't see the Sevens mode in the table of contents when he flashed those pages real briefly.

I'm not terribly worried about that.

Sevens is a very simple modification to the basic rules.

Star players! Get’cher star players!
All the “missing” stars (only sixteen in the rulebook) are now available to download from Warhammer Community.

Because this ever growing list of Star Players can’t fit in the rulebook

... why?
Am I missing something that would prevent them from increasing the number of pages to accommodate the full range?
It's nice that they are providing them for free, I'm just curious as to why they've decided to only include a small selection rather than the whole lot.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Because this ever growing list of Star Players can’t fit in the rulebook

... why?
Am I missing something that would prevent them from increasing the number of pages to accommodate the full range?
It's nice that they are providing them for free, I'm just curious as to why they've decided to only include a small selection rather than the whole lot.

Bigger books cost more to make.

Well yes, obviously. I'm more interested in why they've said "can't" when it feels far more appropriate to say "won't".
Clearly someone has sat down and made a decision that von Drakenborg is in the book while Grombrindal is in the PDF, I'm just puzzled as to why.

Was there a specific page count that limited what they could publish at a certain price point?
Was there a specific price that the production cost of the book had to fall below?

I'm aware that I am complaining about receiving things for free, I'm just uncomfortable with the sentiment that doing half a job is not only acceptable but in fact inevitable.
Also I am slightly annoyed in having to carry around a rulebook while still relying on my phone to access rules, and also having to remember which Star Player is in which document for no obvious benefit to either party.

Do you guys not know that you can only expand books in fixed increments? Like, you can’t “just add a page” it’s eight pages or none. If you add eight pages you need eight pages of content.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Do you guys not know that you can only expand books in fixed increments? Like, you can’t “just add a page” it’s eight pages or none. If you add eight pages you need eight pages of content.

Yes. It's more apparent on hardcovers where the group of folded pages are bound together and can be seen by looking at the top (or bottom) of the book near the spine.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Well yes, obviously. I'm more interested in why they've said "can't" when it feels far more appropriate to say "won't".
Clearly someone has sat down and made a decision that von Drakenborg is in the book while Grombrindal is in the PDF, I'm just puzzled as to why.

Was there a specific page count that limited what they could publish at a certain price point?
Was there a specific price that the production cost of the book had to fall below?

I'm aware that I am complaining about receiving things for free, I'm just uncomfortable with the sentiment that doing half a job is not only acceptable but in fact inevitable.
Also I am slightly annoyed in having to carry around a rulebook while still relying on my phone to access rules, and also having to remember which Star Player is in which document for no obvious benefit to either party.

They chose not to. Nothing else to it.

Pre-orders are up, and once again, the cards are not available to order in France. That's I think the 3rd time in a row (after LI & Necromunda) that cards are not available in France for a Specialist Game.
Really weird, and irritating.

 schoon wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

It was a shame that I didn't see the Sevens mode in the table of contents when he flashed those pages real briefly.

I'm not terribly worried about that.

Sevens is a very simple modification to the basic rules.

Very true, I was just hoping that I would be able to only bring a single book instead of two books when heading down to the store to play Sevens.

Pre-Orders are live.
Not only is there no ebook pre-order on Warhammer Digital, the entirely removed the Blood Bowl section. I think the last ebook they released was the Arcane Journal Beastmen.

Random question based off that?

Has there ever been a fully Beastman team? I know they’ve been positional and Big Guys.

They have a Secret League team but have never had an official one AFAIK.
https://fumbbl.com/help:BeastmenT2020

Reckon they might be on the slate as a new team for the 3rd Season?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Reckon they might be on the slate as a new team for the 3rd Season?

It’s always a possibility but given certain changes to other options, it’s much more likely that the next chaos team(s) will be Slaanesh or Tzeentch flavoured with matching beastman varieties.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Random question based off that?

Has there ever been a fully Beastman team? I know they’ve been positional and Big Guys.

Citadel Journal 29 (the one with the cool bolter cover) had both Beastmen and Chaos Warrior teams, as it was published around the time that Fantasy split Chaos into different armies.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Citadel Journal 29 (the one with the cool bolter cover) had both Beastmen and Chaos Warrior teams, as it was published around the time that Fantasy split Chaos into different armies.

Thanks! That's with looking looking up!

 schoon wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Citadel Journal 29 (the one with the cool bolter cover) had both Beastmen and Chaos Warrior teams, as it was published around the time that Fantasy split Chaos into different armies.

Thanks! That's with looking looking up!

It was the first Journal I bought, and I snipped weapons off metal Chaos marauders to make players for Blood Bowl...

Blood Bowl release day!
Also, a zero-day FAQ! Plus the initial Tier List! And the High Elf team!
Here!
So many exclamation marks‼️

For anyone who got them do the Spike! Magazines still include Dungeon Bowl school updates for each team? I am really hoping the passing revisions might encourage a new DB season alongisde it, with some more themed tiles for two more of them...

Nope, no dungeon bowl stats.
Presumably that means any third season dungeon bowl set will have the updated listings included.

Of course with the “only what you can buy in whole sprues” thing, some team comps may change a lot.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Of course with the “only what you can buy in whole sprues” thing, some team comps may change a lot.

With Human teams having access to 0-3 Halfling Hopefuls, GW's not even being consistent on that 'rule'!

Interestingly, on the indicia page of the new Blood Bowl rulebook, it's down as copyright 2026. Was this brought forward in publication to cover some other, cancelled release?

Shakalooloo wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Of course with the “only what you can buy in whole sprues” thing, some team comps may change a lot.

With Human teams having access to 0-3 Halfling Hopefuls, GW's not even being consistent on that 'rule'!

Fair enough. But I expect that the core/poster-child team setups will be in whole half-team chunks.

Shakalooloo wrote:Interestingly, on the indicia page of the new Blood Bowl rulebook, it's down as copyright 2026. Was this brought forward in publication to cover some other, cancelled release?

Lots of publications have advanced “publication” dates; monthly magazines tend to ‘officially’ be for the next month, for example. I think it might have to do with which financial year the revenue gets counted for.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Shakalooloo wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Of course with the “only what you can buy in whole sprues” thing, some team comps may change a lot.

With Human teams having access to 0-3 Halfling Hopefuls, GW's not even being consistent on that 'rule'!

Fair enough. But I expect that the core/poster-child team setups will be in whole half-team chunks.

Shakalooloo wrote:Interestingly, on the indicia page of the new Blood Bowl rulebook, it's down as copyright 2026. Was this brought forward in publication to cover some other, cancelled release?

Lots of publications have advanced “publication” dates; monthly magazines tend to ‘officially’ be for the next month, for example. I think it might have to do with which financial year the revenue gets counted for.

I don't think GW has ever done it for their books before. They have done the reverse sometimes for delayed things, though!

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Shakalooloo wrote:Interestingly, on the indicia page of the new Blood Bowl rulebook, it's down as copyright 2026. Was this brought forward in publication to cover some other, cancelled release?

Lots of publications have advanced “publication” dates; monthly magazines tend to ‘officially’ be for the next month, for example. I think it might have to do with which financial year the revenue gets counted for.

This conflates a few different things. Magazine and comic book cover dates tend to be for the following month, as it means they feel like the latest issue for more of their time on the shelf. Nothing to do with revenue, which will be down to the date of the sale, individual companies' accounting practices, local laws, and other factors, which can't be manipulated by changing the date on the cover. But, anyway, more to the point…

The copyright date is based on the date of publication (or creation). It's specified as a year rather than a precise date because in most jurisdictions all works entering the public domain do so on the 1st of January of the relevant year. In the UK, the precise form of the copyright notice published in the front of a book isn't specified by law – it's just something publishers choose to do to assert their rights, and (according to conventional wisdom) to make it easier to defend their rights from any infringement. I don't recall seeing a copyright notice published with a future year before, so it is an interesting observation. Not sure it's of much consequence legally, though.

It happens all the time with books published towards the end of the year.
As somebody already said, it probably has to do with fiscal years.

 SgtEeveell wrote:
It happens all the time with books published towards the end of the year.
As somebody already said, it probably has to do with fiscal years.

As already said, it has nothing to do with fiscal years. Revenue will be attributed to the relevant year depending on the date of the sale, individual companies' accounting practices, local laws and other factors. Copyright date is completely irrelevant. Think about it – why would it? The book will be around for years – companies obviously wouldn't attribute the revenue retrospectively to the year of publication, and the same applies going forwards.

Like I say, I don't recall seeing a future copyright date on a book. It is possible this came forward a little at some point.