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.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.

So if for example you were a Dwarf player, you wouldn't have been happy using a block of your 20 GW dwarfs with shields to proxy as, say, a block of 20 Mantic dwarfs with shields? You see models by brand rather than what the model is?

I was so happy to break free from that mentality. My KoW armies have figures from all sorts of ranges. I love that I can use the figures I like the look of best from whichever manufacturer.

The original topic here is "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?". I think we can all agree they are just as good at convincing people you can only use their products in their games as they've been for decades.

As I have said before, and likely will continue to say, GW is good at putting up the illusion they've gotten better. Have things improved? In a way, but there have also been a good share of not-so-good things.

AOS came out, and people slagged it because they wanted points and the fun rules for legacy armies came off as making fun and not lightherted. General's Handbook came out and it was good, but now Matched Play has killed off the other styles so it may as well have started at page 98.

40k has tons of releases while the core stays bloated and unwieldy (I have yet to see a 40k game at my GW store that didn't abruptly end by Turn 3... because it was closing time for the shop and it had gone on for about 6 hours already), yet there's a constant flux of new models that gets everyone to forget about that and rush out to buy. Hopefully 8th edition fixes this.

Blood Bowl came back, but support is stretched out so there's little point in getting into it just yet when there are still lots of things yet to be released.

Start Collecting and Battleforces were great with good savings, but the Battleforces were severely limited and only for a small handful of already-popular armies, while other armies get ignored still so stay less used.

AOS releases slowed down but Order is getting the lion's share as well as being shoved down everyone's throats in the fluff books demolishing Chaos basically every chance they get and making those factions look weak in comparison.

New White Dwarf was great, very little complaints about that.

Prices are still nuts and every new box is always a little bit more than what was before it for no reason.

Community involvement was good, as good as you can expect them to do. Warhammer-Community is nice and they've even started previewing things instead of relying on "What new thing did GW come out with this week that I need to buy?" mindset. Them having FAQs are good but they continue to show that they barely think about what is being asked and many of the answers are either nonsensical, contradict what they previously said, or are just vague.

So again, they have improved a bit, but a lot of it I feel is illusionary so people will ignore all the bad stuff they have done/continue to do by pointing out "But they did X! They are listening!" when they really aren't

Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.

What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?

morgoth wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.

What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?

The stated or suggested validity of the list compared to the old books of inquisition and sisters.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.

What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?

The stated or suggested validity of the list compared to the old books of inquisition and sisters.

Stated or suggested? Which is it? This isn't the SoB fans getting all hyped up and reading things into nothing again, is it? They should try and stop doing that.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.

What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?

The stated or suggested validity of the list compared to the old books of inquisition and sisters.

Stated or suggested? Which is it? This isn't the SoB fans getting all hyped up and reading things into nothing again, is it? They should try and stop doing that.

Pretty sure it is. Someone over in the Codex: Inquisition thread made a good point:

 Ir0njack wrote:
My view

Its just a book that pulls many basic options from their respective codex and presents them in printed book so people can use them without pulling out several different books or e-books with the trade off being you don't all the options and characters available if you had used said army's actual codex.

GW is probably operating under the assumption that a person who buys C:IA doesn't have Codex: Inquisiton, Sisters of Battle, Grey knights, officio assassinorium, or any others I missed and would like to have access to some their units without having to buy several different books and haul them around or constantly pages through their mobile device. There was a another possibly that I had considered but I forgot it while navigating the ridiculous late holiday shopping crowds while picking up ingredients.

Either way, even a quick flip through the book it's obvious that its not meant to replace any codex but just condenses several options into one source and throws in some new formations in the process (something GW themselves with their new sovial presence, have confirmed it's intention was), a very practical idea that due to classic GW unclear wording (and perhaps abit of demagoguery from others) has been taken for something else.

I honestly don't see what there is to get so bent out of shape about.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/711521.page#9099131

Well if true, then yes GW is getting better in trying to give people what they want, be able to play with units instead of buying all those books.

Thing is what I don't understand, why do this when a new edition is coming out and it can be invalidated so quickly. I thought new GW would not do this, but old GW would do this.

Why not just come out and give a road map what they plan on instead of trying to "squeeze" every penny they can and have good will showing they really care instead of just being a business.

Davor wrote:
Well if true, then yes GW is getting better in trying to give people what they want, be able to play with units instead of buying all those books.

Thing is what I don't understand, why do this when a new edition is coming out and it can be invalidated so quickly. I thought new GW would not do this, but old GW would do this.

Why not just come out and give a road map what they plan on instead of trying to "squeeze" every penny they can and have good will showing they really care instead of just being a business.

Well, if they just released a new 8th edition main rulebook and cleaned up the rules, a lot of the existing codices could still be used in a cleaner rule set.

Really?

Can you use your old Army Book rules in AOS?

Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.

True Jreilly89 but then we have codex creep and we are back to square one. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see this again.

I rather see an overhaul.

I'd like to see 40k burned to the ground to be honest and an across the board balancing done with less bloated rules.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Really?

Can you use your old Army Book rules in AOS?

Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.

Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.

Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
True Jreilly89 but then we have codex creep and we are back to square one. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see this again.

I rather see an overhaul.

So you don't want old books invalidated, but you don't want codex creep? It's one or the other, man. Either they release a new rulebook, all new codices, and invalidate all the 7th books, or they only release the main rulebook at first and we have to deal with codex creep until they update each codex.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Really?

Can you use your old Army Book rules in AOS?

Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.

Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.

Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.

I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Really?

Can you use your old Army Book rules in AOS?

Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.

Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.

Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.

I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?

Like I said, until we see some screenshots, nothing shows that 8th edition will automatically invalidate 7th edition books. Heck, Eldar rocked their 6th edition codex for almost a year until their 7th edition codex was dropped. Please let me know when you have some real proof that Armageddon is coming.

Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.

 auticus wrote:
I'd like to see 40k burned to the ground to be honest and an across the board balancing done with less bloated rules.

I think this is what many players want.
Not sure if GW is listening.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Really?

Can you use your old Army Book rules in AOS?

Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.

Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.

Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.

I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?

Like I said, until we see some screenshots, nothing shows that 8th edition will automatically invalidate 7th edition books. Heck, Eldar rocked their 6th edition codex for almost a year until their 7th edition codex was dropped. Please let me know when you have some real proof that Armageddon is coming.

Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.

You really didn't understand any of my post at all, did you?

I didn't say "Armageddon was coming," neither was 6-7th in anyway a significant change for any codex, Eldar or otherwise. I'm talking a 2nd-3rd style transition, where stats were recalibrated or even invalidated. No 2nd edition codex was usable from day 1 of 3rd.

In fact a root and branch rewrite of the game is likely the only way it can get away from the rules bloat that's the net result of 3 decades of bolting things on to a ruleset that was repurposed from its original intent in the first place.

Far from Armageddon, it'd be a welcome new beginning, and I'm quite happy to accept the word of someone who's proven time and again that they have access to information well ahead of time as "proof." In fact, to deny anything they state outright at this point seems wilfully obtuse, but then I'm not heavily invested in anything GW enough these days for it to be so important either way.

-

my 2 cents on it.

GW is sorta like a person going through rehab/ therapy, they hit a all time low, but are getting better. They have made some good progress in getting back into the spirit of warhammer and back to their root of making cool minis for a table top game, and not trying to make it more then it actually is.

This is seen through things like their battle box sets, getting started which are a great deal, shout outs to fans bringing back much loved armies (Waiting for squats). But they still have dipped into their old ways here and there, but seem to be learning.

They biggest fopa in my opinion was the nuking of warhammer fantasy, the game itself is alright, but they alienated a large group of players when they destroyed rank and file. Their outragious prices on AoS models is another example, but again, i feel like they are learning from it and taking steps in being a good company again.

They recent swaths of boxed games have been a HUGE hit, namely silver tower which is hands down one of the best games they put out, in my humble opinion.

In short, GW has come a long way from being the money grabbing company it was that was on the quest for every single dollar on the planet, and they still have a lot of ground to cover, but its looking good.

Im hoping they will address the issue regarding their pricing, especially when it comes to single models like heros and HQs, sorry but 20 bucks for a single mini is whats driving people to buy recast for a 5th of the cost.

But only time will tell, they stopped the ship from sinking, now they just need stop the sails from burning.

Just for future reference, 'faux pas' is the word you're looking for, not 'fopa'. Literally translated into 'wrong step'.

I agree with you that they basically hit about as low as they could go, and are making some steps to re-enter the modern gaming industry. The internet presence is actually well done for a company that's been ignoring it for as long as they have, and I'm hoping the trend continues.

I just hope 8th brings a positive significant change to the rules, which are still a major sticking point for many people. I want to say it can't get much worse than 7th, but GW has proven me wrong before, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

And bring back fething BFG.

 Blacksails wrote:
Just for future reference, 'faux pas' is the word you're looking for, not 'fopa'. Literally translated into 'wrong step'.

I agree with you that they basically hit about as low as they could go, and are making some steps to re-enter the modern gaming industry. The internet presence is actually well done for a company that's been ignoring it for as long as they have, and I'm hoping the trend continues.

I just hope 8th brings a positive significant change to the rules, which are still a major sticking point for many people. I want to say it can't get much worse than 7th, but GW has proven me wrong before, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

And bring back fething BFG.

OMG right?!

I feel like so many people are nervously eyeing BFG and twitching waiting for it to come back. I agree 7th is pretty bad, but hey its GW, they can take a bad idea and make it worse. AoS has some ups and downs, but i think some of its mechanics can be pulled out and very nicely applied to 40k to solve some issues.

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Aye, it would for me, I like the AoS rules for what they are, more laid back, less strat just pile in goodness.

I think 40k could take a few nice things from AoS, mainly wound allocation, and an adaptation of the rend system. But for the most part i like 40k being the more rule heavy of the two.

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?

-

 Bottle wrote:
I think GW's FY runs from June, so it's gonna include GHB, Sylvaneth, Genestealer Cults, Deathwatch and BoP in those 6 months. All were heavy hitters from my understanding (Genestealer Cult especially).

If thats the case then 1000 sons, and Prospero both fell into November and they sold like hot cakes, so that could be a boost there.

-

 Bottle wrote:
I think they were both December actually - or at least TS were, but yes, they're only going to make the up coming report even better :-)

I think you might be right, the last week, and first week of December kinda have blurred together.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?

For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.