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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Winter faq's out. Just minor thingies(no bouncing mw with teclis and friendly endless spells...duh) and no point updates

The errata for armies are still being updated, I'm fairly certain there are going to be poitns adjustments in each army errata.

Seeing GW flat out said no updates to points...no.

Oh, I missed that.

Well, that's good I suppose.

It's a complete joke. They had the data to do a bunch of "Metawatch" articles hyping the competitive side of the game, but not enough data to know that Barak Zilfin WLV Spell-in-a-Bottle needs a change? Also, they call it a "comprehensive set of FAQs," but they only actually updated about 8 of them.

Also, despite claiming they didn't change points, they actually did change the Nighthaunt points...back to what they were before GHB2020, because whoever was doing that FAQ wasn't paying attention and accidentally included the points again.

This is a multi-billion dollar company. Sigh.

They didn't do the metawatch articles. Those were written by people from outside of the company.

They just published them.

That's simply not true.

Who do you think Steve Wren, "the Warhammer Worlds Event Manager," is, if not a GW employee?

They are interviews with players, but the interviews are done by GW, and the graphics, pictures, etc are all GW-branded as well.

They've already noted on FB that the Nighthaunt changes are a mistake.

Also I wasn't aware they were multi-billion - million yes but billion?

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's simply not true.

Who do you think Steve Wren, "the Warhammer Worlds Event Manager," is, if not a GW employee?

They are interviews with players, but the interviews are done by GW, and the graphics, pictures, etc are all GW-branded as well.

And who do you think is doing the talking in the interview?

The statements are from players, not GW. The graphics and pictures being from GW is a big whoopity frigging doo.
Additionally, there are articles that are strictly player generated. Vincent and Tom from Warhammer Weekly did one at the start of the year.

They "noted on FB that the Nighthaunt changes are a mistake" because someone pointed it out to them within minutes of posting, because it's a super obvious mistake that anyone actually paying attention would notice. It's pretty embarrassing that their "comprehensive set of FAQs" has obvious errors in it that people spot within 5 minutes of them being posted.

Google is your friend re: GW's value. Last time I checked they were worth in the region of 3.6 billion. It's probably more now.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=GAW:LSE

4.75 billion now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's simply not true.

Who do you think Steve Wren, "the Warhammer Worlds Event Manager," is, if not a GW employee?

They are interviews with players, but the interviews are done by GW, and the graphics, pictures, etc are all GW-branded as well.

And who do you think is doing the talking in the interview?

The statements are from players, not GW. The graphics and pictures being from GW is a big whoopity frigging doo.

Two people are doing the talking. One of them is a GW employee, and he's the one controlling the discussion because he's the one doing the interview. You know, when they say "Steve:" that means that's a GW employee talking, right? It's a GW article posted on GW's site done by GW employees. The interview has been edited by GW for use on its own website (I guarantee you they didn't just print word-for-word everything the player said with no editorial changes; you know this is the case because they put the explanatory *s in like they always do). Saying it's not a GW article because the interviewee is a player is a joke. I literally cannot believe you are actually seriously making this argument.

Anything posted on a GW site is a GW article by definition, but it's even stranger to argue an article where the interviewer is a GW employee is not a GW article.

yukishiro1 wrote:
They "noted on FB that the Nighthaunt changes are a mistake" because someone pointed it out to them within minutes of posting, because it's a super obvious mistake that anyone actually paying attention would notice. It's pretty embarrassing that their "comprehensive set of FAQs" has obvious errors in it that people spot within 5 minutes of them being posted.

Google is your friend re: GW's value. Last time I checked they were worth in the region of 3.6 billion. It's probably more now.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=GAW:LSE

4.75 billion now.

I agree that given their current financial resources, they probably could spend more on editing resources to ensure what they publish meets an acceptable level of accuracy and quality (neither to be confused with “balance”), but your reference to their market cap and the relationship it has to the amount of money they have to spend a bit misleading as you seem to be confusing market cap, i.e. what all issued GW stock is worth, with what GW's actual revenue is and what they can spend.

You should probably refer to their earnings report for a better idea of how much money GW has and the size of the company, e.g. per their half-yearly report issued 12 Jan 2021 they earned £186.8m (~255.3m USD) in last six months and have £96.5m in cash and cash equivalents which interestingly is almost double what they had last year and probably reflects them stock piling cash due to COVID and BREXIT uncertainty and their apparent aversion to long term debt.

Consequently, it is more accurate to describe GW as a multi-million dollar company, not a multi-billion dollar company since they don’t earn or spend billions (yet). Again, no excuse for the shoddy QC on FAQ’s or other published works.

Why would they spend money on it? People keep paying hand over foot for their shoddy ruleset.

The Facebook response could've been "Lmao who cares you'll buy this stuff anyway. Go and buy some stuff off our webstore and get over it lol" and nothing would change.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They "noted on FB that the Nighthaunt changes are a mistake" because someone pointed it out to them within minutes of posting, because it's a super obvious mistake that anyone actually paying attention would notice. It's pretty embarrassing that their "comprehensive set of FAQs" has obvious errors in it that people spot within 5 minutes of them being posted.

Google is your friend re: GW's value. Last time I checked they were worth in the region of 3.6 billion. It's probably more now.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=GAW:LSE

4.75 billion now.

I agree that given their current financial resources, they probably could spend more on editing resources to ensure what they publish meets an acceptable level of accuracy and quality (neither to be confused with “balance”), but your reference to their market cap and the relationship it has to the amount of money they have to spend a bit misleading as you seem to be confusing market cap, i.e. what all issued GW stock is worth, with what GW's actual revenue is and what they can spend.

You should probably refer to their earnings report for a better idea of how much money GW has and the size of the company, e.g. per their half-yearly report issued 12 Jan 2021 they earned £186.8m (~255.3m USD) in last six months and have £96.5m in cash and cash equivalents which interestingly is almost double what they had last year and probably reflects them stock piling cash due to COVID and BREXIT uncertainty and their apparent aversion to long term debt.

Consequently, it is more accurate to describe GW as a multi-million dollar company, not a multi-billion dollar company since they don’t earn or spend billions (yet). Again, no excuse for the shoddy QC on FAQ’s or other published works.

Uh, it's you who is confusing metrics here. The value of a company is nearly always described in terms of market capitalization, and almost never in terms of yearly revenues. When someone says "Apple is a trillion dollar company" they don't mean Apple has a trillion dollars in yearly revenue. When someone says "X is a Y-dollar company" they basically always mean the value of the company. If you want to talk about yearly revenues, you say "X sells Y value of products every year" or something like that.

If you want to say the value of the company is misleading because GW doesn't actually have the resources of the average billion-dollar company because its stock is wildly inflated relative to its actual financial performance, that's an argument we can have. But that's different than saying "no GW isn't a billion dollar company!" It emphatically is.

The excuse is particularly funny since 40k got huge changes in their faq with lot less time to collect data during worse corona period

I did NOT see the markable warcry units coming and dam is that a fantastic change. I am absolutely a fan of how they went about it; they did not go the simple route of giving all the warscrolls the ability to take marks but rather tied it to a specific division of StD allegiance. Very smart since that prevents a large number of potential exploits from the get go, and further enhances Idolators as having a unique identity. Really happy with this change, well done GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a complete joke. They had the data to do a bunch of "Metawatch" articles hyping the competitive side of the game

Do we really want them doing point changes based on the viewpoints of those articles? Sure some are on the mark, but others seem to be way off. Look at their most recent one the the sample armies they have. Those builds are completely under-optimised and if they think THAT is a meta army it really does explain the state of balance we have in a nutshell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
The excuse is particularly funny since 40k got huge changes in their faq with lot less time to collect data during worse corona period

TBF, there are a lot more 40k players and given the mass amount of 40k releases even more short-term feedback as a result.

The most recent one wasn't even a real metawatch, I have no idea why they titled it that. It doesn't follow the format of any of the others, both in terms of not having a GW interviewer and in terms of not focusing on actual competitive lists. It feels like it was just an excuse to get Vince and Tom onto the site.

GW doesn't have to be geniuses to figure out that Kroak at 320 is too cheap, or that Barak Zilfin WLV-in-a-bottle is totally broken. If they had said "we're not going to do a full points evaluation because we don't feel we have the data needed, so we're only going to touch a few of the most egregiously oppressive things" that'd be one thing and I think most people would have been ok with it. Claiming they don't have enough data to show anything, however, is clearly not true and is just insulting to peoples' intelligence. Nobody can argue with a straight face that we don't know that Kroak is undercosted. Sure, maybe only increase him to 350ish instead of 400ish if you're not 100% sure what the right cost is, but everyone knows that 320 is not it. You can't tell me they honestly don't know that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am absolutely a fan of how they went about it; they did not go the simple route of giving all the warscrolls the ability to take marks but rather tied it to a specific division of StD allegiance. Very smart since that prevents a large number of potential exploits from the get go, and further enhances Idolators as having a unique identity. Really happy with this change, well done GW.

Yay, they fixed absolute trash-tier units for ONE sub-allegiance. That's amazing. And if you don't want to play Idolators, your not-cultist warbands can continue to sit on the shelf waiting to turn back into liquid oil.

As for Metawatch, they sure sounded like GW (since they were the ones doing moderating, like all articles on Warhammer Community website they are glorified marketing pitches) is proud of how broken some of the builds are. Don't forget to buy all of the eels for Idoneth, spamming them is a GW-approved tactic, not a byproduct of trash game balance.

Uh, not all of the cultist warbands are bad to begin with--they simply perform as one would expect for a unit that costs so few points.

Anyways, I think that ideally they should gain the Undivided keyword (along with other non-markable StD units) while only Idolators get the full range. But I prefer this, vastly, over not having it at all. Which is what we had before. If your roof has three leaks and someone patches one of them, do you spit in their face because they didn't fix the other two? Because that's a great way to not get the other leaks fixed.

If I pay them for keeping the roof from leaking at all and they just slap a strip of duct-tape on one of the holes then yes, they deserve not spit but a paddling, the lazy buggers. GW isn't doing us a favor by fixing their products, it's not charity, it's part of product support that we pay their exorbitant prices for.

So is this whole marked Warcry warbands thing in the Slaves to Darkness FAQ? Seems like no matter what I do, I can only open the July version of the PDF.

 Geifer wrote:
So is this whole marked Warcry warbands thing in the Slaves to Darkness FAQ? Seems like no matter what I do, I can only open the July version of the PDF.

Morathi. It only matters for subfaction in that book.

Unnamed version shown off in lore article about the Aelementari Temples today.

Such an amazing sculpt.

Glorious.

tneva82 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
So is this whole marked Warcry warbands thing in the Slaves to Darkness FAQ? Seems like no matter what I do, I can only open the July version of the PDF.

Morathi. It only matters for subfaction in that book.

Thanks.

Interesting how early this is. I was thinking we might not see models released until April, so it’s interesting to see WC coming already.

diepotato47 wrote:
Interesting how early this is. I was thinking we might not see models released until April, so it’s interesting to see WC coming already.

Well if they want broken realms cover all factions it's 6-7 books. Got to release faster than every 6 months before aos3

Agreed, but then again we saw new Slaanesh pretty early last year and they aren't coming until February (and possibly late February if the Black Library Weekend counts as one of the release weeks since GW is down to only 2 a month)

So the water temple and zenith/pure light mentioned in the article.
Is that the four temples of Lumineth?

Mountain, River, Wind & Light.

Danny76 wrote:
So the water temple and zenith/pure light mentioned in the article.
Is that the four temples of Lumineth?

Mountain, River, Wind & Light.

Yes as per battle tome. We have known names from the start including some details(mounted archers for wlnd for example)

I don’t have the battle tome. That’s why I was asking.

Yeah, so, why were people talking about “fire elves” earlier then?
Did someone hear elemental temples and jump straight to Classical Greek elements or what?
(Also do not have the tome)

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Yeah, so, why were people talking about “fire elves” earlier then?
Did someone hear elemental temples and jump straight to Classical Greek elements or what?
(Also do not have the tome)

Because people have been nonstop meming about Avatar and other nonsense rather than listening to the folks who have been posting about this stuff for almost half of a year.